5 ms·

This is why I believe the package management tool should be separate from the interpreter management tool. Downloading a random third-party build can be valuabl

This is why I believe the package management tool should be separate from the interpreter management tool. Downloading a random third-party build can be valuable for some, but most people have a good enough interpreter on their machines. This would also largely invalidate the need to write the package manager in Rust. A Rust program managing Python packages adds an unreasonable barrier to entry and makes Python seem like a toy language if it can't manage its own packages.

the_mitsuhiko 3y ago
Rye is hamstrung by Python’s historic lack of desire to create portable Python distributions on platforms other than Windows. If it wouldn’t be for that I think the experience would already be much better. Rust, Go and node (particularly in combination with Volta) show that combining package management and interpreter management into a close coupling can create a great developer experience. For me (Rye author here) I wanted to see how close to that I can go. Unfortunately alone it’s quite a lot of work.
- skywal_l 3y ago
  Thank you for your hard work! Don't be let down by the negativity this author displays. Probably the result of his youth. Your work is still useful and even though imperfect, very much appreciated.
  - Kwpolska 3y ago
    I‘m pretty sure ageism is against the rules here.
- Kwpolska 3y ago
  Combining package and interpreter management can be a good developer experience for some, but it also means some people can’t or won’t use the tool, because they prefer their OS’s Python, or are forced to use a specific Python. Decoupling the two while designing the interpreter manager CLI to forward some actions or parts of them to the package manager would be the best of both worlds. Users who can/want your interpreters use the merged CLI, others can still use the package manager separately with their favourite Python.
  - the_mitsuhiko 3y ago
    > Combining package and interpreter management can be a good developer experience for some, but it also means some people can’t or won’t use the tool, because they prefer their OS’s Python, or are forced to use a specific Python. Which is why rye allows you to register any toolchain with it: https://rye-up.com/guide/toolchains/#registering-toolchains https://rye-up.com/guide/toolchains/#registering-toolchains
IshKebab 3y ago
This doesn't give any reason to separate the package management and toolchain management. They very obviously should be managed by the same tool, and virtually all modern languages do it like that. The only reason it is awkward in Python is because of Python nonsense, not because it's a bad idea. > makes Python seem like a toy language if it can't manage its own packages. Well, quite. But plenty of people have to use Python so I don't see why we shouldn't make good tooling for it in better languages. The same thing is happening for JavaScript.
catlover76 3y ago
[dead]

the_mitsuhiko 3y ago

Rye is hamstrung by Python’s historic lack of desire to create portable Python distributions on platforms other than Windows. If it wouldn’t be for that I think the experience would already be much better. Rust, Go and node (particularly in combination with Volta) show that combining package management and interpreter management into a close coupling can create a great developer experience. For me (Rye author here) I wanted to see how close to that I can go. Unfortunately alone it’s quite a lot of work.

skywal_l 3y ago
Thank you for your hard work! Don't be let down by the negativity this author displays. Probably the result of his youth. Your work is still useful and even though imperfect, very much appreciated.
- Kwpolska 3y ago
  I‘m pretty sure ageism is against the rules here.
Kwpolska 3y ago
Combining package and interpreter management can be a good developer experience for some, but it also means some people can’t or won’t use the tool, because they prefer their OS’s Python, or are forced to use a specific Python. Decoupling the two while designing the interpreter manager CLI to forward some actions or parts of them to the package manager would be the best of both worlds. Users who can/want your interpreters use the merged CLI, others can still use the package manager separately with their favourite Python.
- the_mitsuhiko 3y ago
  > Combining package and interpreter management can be a good developer experience for some, but it also means some people can’t or won’t use the tool, because they prefer their OS’s Python, or are forced to use a specific Python. Which is why rye allows you to register any toolchain with it: https://rye-up.com/guide/toolchains/#registering-toolchains https://rye-up.com/guide/toolchains/#registering-toolchains

IshKebab 3y ago

This doesn't give any reason to separate the package management and toolchain management. They very obviously should be managed by the same tool, and virtually all modern languages do it like that. The only reason it is awkward in Python is because of Python nonsense, not because it's a bad idea. > makes Python seem like a toy language if it can't manage its own packages. Well, quite. But plenty of people have to use Python so I don't see why we shouldn't make good tooling for it in better languages. The same thing is happening for JavaScript.

catlover76 3y ago

[dead]