10 ms·
99% of top Python packages are now wheels
- Filligree 3y agoHow someone not intimately involved with the ecosystem would figure out all this is beyond me. There’s probably a blog post somewhere, but Python.org isn’t super helpful when you’re trying to find the equivalent of `cargo run`.
- vladvasiliu 3y agoWheels are more akin to crates, so you'd be looking for cargo add -> pip install. It's been a while since I've first learned python, but pip install came up fairly quickly. At the time, there were no such things as wheels, but when those came, basically nothing changed for me.
- nerdchum 3y agoWhat does this mean?
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- pdimitar 3y ago30 years later I still love programming but people given authority opting for cutesy names for critically important terms in the ecosystem should be severely limited in their options. Flakes, pills, wheels, eggs... Come on, people. I am willing to bet good money that it won't hurt you physically if you just call them "packages".
- boristhespider 3y agoYes, but if we just called them packages the headline would be "99% of top Python packages are now packages"
- pdimitar 3y agoWhich would make the article completely redundant, and that works for me. :D But let's be serious, they could have just said "99% of the top Python packages upgraded to our new packaging system" which would be much more informative and interesting title and would make me read it in full, as opposed to now when I just facepalmed.
- nickjj 3y ago> But let's be serious, they could have just said "99% of the top Python packages upgraded to our new packaging system" which would be much more informative and interesting title How about "99% of the top Python packages don't require being compiled to install them". That's one of the biggest wins of wheels. They have pre-compiled binaries for all supported platforms of that package. This typically applies to Python packages that have C dependencies.
- pdimitar 3y agoAnd I would have never understood that from a cursory look at the article. Learned it just now from you.
- adhesive_wombat 3y agoIt's number 3 in "advantages of wheels", which is above the fold on my screen and exactly 50 words into the page, including titles.
- pdimitar 3y agoFair enough, my point was that the terminology was a put-off. Reads like kids bragging about stuff and not as a technical article.
- capableweb 3y agoSo without understanding the reasoning why they are not simply called "python packages" but "wheels", so they have distinct meaning, you chose to go on a tirade about why they are not simply called "packages" instead? The confidence of some HN commentators never ceases to surprise me
- easywood 3y agoYou're completely right. The site doesn't even bother to explain what "eggs" are. And while it lists the benefits of wheels, there is no word about the apparent downsides of eggs, or maybe a little comparison table.
- frou_dh 3y agoThe official documentation actually has a Glossary so they evidently do know that it's an issue. https://packaging.python.org/en/latest/glossary/ https://packaging.python.org/en/latest/glossary/
- wiredfool 3y agoRpms, apks, debs, msi, exe, tarballs, zips, jars, wars...
- pdimitar 3y agoWell these are at least more or less known and widely used (though I agree if you never worked with Java that .JAR and .WAR will be confusing). But when a language ecosystem opts for cutesy niche names then they just end up confusing everybody, including some of their own users.
- plq 3y agoI think JAR (Java Archive) and WAR (Web Archive) make sense. But wheel? It's a wheel of cheese, because pypi used to be called cheeseshop? I mean sure, but doesn't it feel a bit like that 20-year-old tatoo that you got during your teens that you got mixed feelings about today? My suggestion: Call them pypacks -- extension: .pyp
- incrudible 3y agoJAR itself is a cutesy reference. You put your code in a jar, get it? WAR is perhaps not a cute reference, but it hints at what you'll be facing...
- pdimitar 3y agoThat's why I said jar/war are kind of the exception. They are still recognizable for many though, whereas Nix and Python's names are just WTF.
- pdimitar 3y ago> I mean sure, but doesn't it feel a bit like that 20-year-old tatoo that you got during your teens that you got mixed feelings about today? That's exactly how I view all these "quirky" names btw.
- firesteelrain 3y ago
- misnome 3y ago> I am willing to bet good money that it won't hurt you physically if you just call them "packages". So, "Packages are the new standard of distributing packages, and replace packages" is clearer to you?
- pdimitar 3y agoEDIT: Reduced my original comment to this: This only outlines that the article is very niche and not very interesting to be posted for non-Python audience. --- ORIGINAL COMMENT: Need I explain that if you arrive at such a title you would have to reevaluate if it's worth posting at all? Apparently I need to explain it. ;) This article is more or less pointless anyhow. Using better terminology would have made that clearer much earlier in the process IMO.
- Balladeer 3y agoThis "article" is a 10+ year-old website that's been tracking an ecosystem-wide migration from one style of preparing python code for distribution to another, more robust style of preparation.
- pdimitar 3y agoThis would have been an awesome introduction paragraph! Would immediately give context to bystanders like myself.
- jasonlotito 3y ago"99% of top Fooz packages are using new package system" vs "99% of top Fooz packages are lame"
- rvnx 3y agoYou wouldn't have to say it even
- joe-user 3y agoTo consider that the only option is rather reductionist. For example, simply add a version, and to use the original title instead of inventing one: > 99% of top Python packages are now on version 2
- Demotooodo 3y agoWe are not even able to align all of this shit in one great platform. There is 0 reason why all of this is so unaligned. Alone how many people maintain packages for different Linux distirs etc. Maintain it once together and only promote it for your distri when you like it. Soooo much energy wasted
- Demotooodo 3y agoImagine PackageHub: Allows for standard features like network of trust, signing, search, smart scanning, transformation into distri specific build flows from a meta format, statistics tracking, CDN, unified package API with dependency resolution and/or SDKs for this. It would also be much much easier to get sponsoring.
- mschuster91 3y agoThis is, other than the fact it violates UNIX principles, my biggest issue with Homebrew.
- jen20 3y agoWhich UNIX principles do you believe it violates?
- mschuster91 3y agoInstalling files in /usr/local/bin (a default path for all users) by an user that is not root. Absolute no-go.
- jen20 3y agoIt hasn’t done that in some time.
- rkangel 3y agoI get the issues, but using a fresh name that doesn't have pre-conceptions is often the better idea. If I call something a "package" people will have an immediate understanding of what "package" means, but it will be several slightly different understandings and that can cause quite subtle issues with learning and understanding. To talk about a different context the BEAM VM (Erlang/Elixir) has "processes". These aren't OS processes but pre-emptively scheduled threads of execution, scheduled by a userspace scheduler onto the available processor cores. They're similar to green threads or fibres in other contexts. They're called "processes" in Erlang because Erlang is old enough that the word process hadn't been implicitly co-opted to mean "OS Process", and it means that whenever I talk about Elixir scheduling I have to insert some version of the above explanation otherwise everyone gets the wrong idea. If they'd called them "florbs" instead, there would be no ambiguity. I still probably have to define the term, but I'm defining it against a universal blank canvas. Or to put it yet another way "All the good metaphors are already taken"
- pdimitar 3y agoAs a guy who made a career out of Elixir (7 years now, though I have mixed and matched that with quite a bit of Rust and some Golang) I could not agree more on the confusing "process" moniker. My point was that calling packages "cheeses" and "wheels" was a conscious decision on the part of the Python community and apparently nobody stopped to think if it does not introduce friction or make them look unprofessional. As you pointed out, Erlang's "process" moniker came from a long long time ago and they have a good reason for it. Python though? 10 years ago many of these problems were well-understood already. Again, my argument is against cutesy quirky names. I get you that the generic "package" name carries some assumptions with it but IMO that's the more worthy battle to fight: to make sure everyone understands the same thing when "package" is mentioned. (EDIT: All that being said, Erlang could have indeed used a quirky name because what they have doesn't seem to have its own term yet. And it doesn't exist anywhere else I think.)
- LoganDark 3y agoThey're not even packages. The package is the source code. A "Wheel" is a compiled distribution.
- kalekold 3y agoPackages are wheels? lolwut? > Wheels are the new standard of Python distribution and are intended to replace eggs. Ahhh... ???
- LegitShady 3y agoPokemon are involved it gets a little confusing.
- incrudible 3y agoPackages are a language-level concept in Python. A package may be a collection of source files on the filesystem, it's still a package, except that doesn't lend itself well to distribution. Moreover, from the language standpoint, the usage of a package (like "import numpy") is the same on all architectures, but the files needed for distribution (native extension module binaries) may differ. Python is rife with Monty Python references, such as "spam and eggs" in place of "foo and bar", so "egg" was a natural choice.
- loxdalen 3y agoAnd here is the reasoning for naming it wheel: https://github.com/pypa/wheel/blob/3c7b6a0d13ee036ea8f6488ab4ecddd9826c00db/docs/index.rst#slogans https://github.com/pypa/wheel/blob/3c7b6a0d13ee036ea8f6488ab.... Probably a reference to Monty Python as well (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cheese_Shop_sketch https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cheese_Shop_sketch)
- jasomill 3y agoDefinitely — the Python Package Index started off as the Python Cheese Shop: https://tech.slashdot.org/story/05/08/01/0150222/pythons-cheese-shop-now-open https://tech.slashdot.org/story/05/08/01/0150222/pythons-che... https://web.archive.org/web/20051027102030/http://cheeseshop.python.org/pypi https://web.archive.org/web/20051027102030/http://cheeseshop...
- loxdalen 3y agoThe linked page has hyperlinks that you can click to get to the specification for at least Wheels.
- omgmajk 3y agoFor people who are confused by this: "Wheel has an official standard specification. Egg did not. Wheel is a distribution format, i.e a packaging format. 1 Egg was both a distribution format and a runtime installation format (if left zipped), and was designed to be importable. Wheel archives do not include .pyc files." [1] [1] https://packaging.python.org/discussions/wheel-vs-egg/ https://packaging.python.org/discussions/wheel-vs-egg/
- TekMol 3y agoIs it possible to publish Python code for others to use simply by putting a repo on a webserver? In other words, can someone put a line like this into their requirements.txt file? https://somewhere.com/some/git/repo.git https://somewhere.com/some/git/repo.git
- Znafon 3y agoYes, you can do this: https://pip.pypa.io/en/stable/topics/vcs-support/ https://pip.pypa.io/en/stable/topics/vcs-support/
- TekMol 3y agoThat is pretty awesome! Why is all the "wheels", "eggs", "PyPi" ... stuff needed then?
- waynesonfire 3y agoNew college grad needs something todo?
- rvnx 3y agoProbably Ruby owns the award for the worst package names. Can you guess what Sorbet is doing in Ruby ? Or Oniguruma ? Or Ahoy ? Or Figaro ?
- woodrowbarlow 3y agoa lot of Python packages contain parts written in native code (often C or Rust) for performance reasons. pip _can_ compile the code at install-time if your PC has the right build tools -- or it can download pre-built binaries for your host in the form of a "wheel". pypi has a little more metadata than a git repo, and a place to host version-controlled binaries.
- aniforprez 3y agoWheels are essentially zip files with all the code required to run it contained in one handy little file for all platforms that the package maintainer chooses to build for. Instead of having to download the source of the packages and building on your machines, you have a cache-able neat little file that contains potentially everything you need to use the package. It makes package installations way faster because it skips the build steps and will ship all the binaries required to run the package (ideally). Eggs were this but are not in use anymore in favor of using wheels. Pypi is the package repository for python packages just like npm
- footlose_3815 3y ago"new standard" apparently is a PEP from 2012
- wiredfool 3y agoThe three that are not wheels are distributed as source tarballs only -- one is AWS Sagemaker that looks like it uses a bunch of native code, one is Apache Spark, and one is futures. I think the news here is that there are no packages in the top N that are using an alternate packaging system without using wheel as well. (alternates being msi, exe, or egg)
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- FloatArtifact 3y agoYet most projects dropping 32 bit wheels.