4 ms·
> 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
by 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
- pdimitar 3y ago(EDIT: made myself sound less conflicting.) It's not such a stretch to want to understand things quicker as an outsider and be annoyed by a seeming gatekeeping via quirky witty terminology. Not sure why you used such a conflicting tone as an opposition of that -- I think, fairly reasonable -- stance.