3 ms·
Sounds like you'ved misjudged the use case. Tools like this do the deployment, they aren't generally deployed themselves. So a portable binary is not a requir
by mixmastamyk 3y ago
Sounds like you'ved misjudged the use case. Tools like this do the deployment, they aren't generally deployed themselves.
So a portable binary is not a requirement. Other points like let or types are not an impediment either, there are many quality tools available if you need them (ruff, pyflakes, mypy), and python has been doing this kind of work productively for thirty years now.
- posix_monad 3y ago> Tools like this do the deployment, they aren't generally deployed themselves. It will have to be executed on many different developer machines (or even your own machine several years in the future) so a simple, reproducible build process, including fetching pip dependencies, is critical.
- mixmastamyk 3y agoPresumably the tool keeps backward compatibility, as did ansible or salt, so this doesn’t seem to be a real-world concern. Very few folks are doing nix-level stuff, yet the world marches on. There will likely be a security fix in it or a dep at a later point, so you wouldn’t want to use the exact same version anyway.