Programming

17398 readers

103 users here now

Welcome to the main community in programming.dev! Feel free to post anything relating to programming here!

Cross posting is strongly encouraged in the instance. If you feel your post or another person's post makes sense in another community cross post into it.

Hope you enjoy the instance!

Rules

Follow the programming.dev instance rules
Keep content related to programming in some way
If you're posting long videos try to add in some form of tldr for those who don't want to watch videos

Wormhole

Follow the wormhole through a path of communities !webdev@programming.dev

founded 1 year ago

MODERATORS

snowe@programming.dev

Ategon@programming.dev

MaungaHikoi@lemmy.nz

199

Is Python's tooling incredibly difficult, or am I just stupid? (sh.itjust.works)

submitted 1 week ago by zaphodb2002@sh.itjust.works to c/programming@programming.dev

112 comments fedilink hide all child comments

So I'm no expert, but I have been a hobbyist C and Rust dev for a while now, and I've installed tons of programs from GitHub and whatnot that required manual compilation or other hoops to jump through, but I am constantly befuddled installing python apps. They seem to always need a very specific (often outdated) version of python, require a bunch of venv nonsense, googling gives tons of outdated info that no longer works, and generally seem incredibly not portable. As someone who doesn't work in python, it seems more obtuse than any other language's ecosystem. Why is it like this?

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] FizzyOrange@programming.dev 30 points 6 days ago (3 children)

Yes it's terrible. The only hope on the horizon is uv. It's significantly better than all the other tooling (Poetry, pip, pipenv, etc.) so I think it has a good chance of reducing the options to just Pip or uv at least.

But I fully expect the Python Devs to ignore it, and maybe even make life deliberately difficult for it like they did for static analysers. They have some strange priorities sometimes.

[–] flubba86@lemmy.world 8 points 6 days ago* (last edited 6 days ago) (1 children)

I like the idea of uv, but I hate the name. Libuv is already a very popular C library, and used in everything from NodeJS to Julia to Python (through the popular uvloop module). Every time I see someone mention uv I get confused and think they're talking about uvloop until I remember the Astral project, and then reconfirm to myself how much I disapprove of their name choice.

[–] FizzyOrange@programming.dev 2 points 6 days ago

I don't think libuv is really that popular, nor is it that confusing.

But I do agree it's not a very good name. "Rye" is a much better name. Probably too late anyway.

[–] scrawdaddy@lemmy.world 2 points 6 days ago

UV is a game changer for python.

I hated the tooling until I found it.

[–] tempest@lemmy.ca 1 points 6 days ago (1 children)

uv is good but it needs a little more time in the oven.

For the moment I would definitely recommend poetry if you are not a library developer. Poetry's biggest sin is it's atrocious performance but it has most of the features you need to work with Python apps today.

[–] FizzyOrange@programming.dev 3 points 5 days ago

Why do you say it needs more time in the oven? I've had zero issues with it as a drop-in replacement for Pip in a large commercial project, which is an extremely impressive achievement. (And it was 10x faster.)

I tried Poetry once and it failed to resolve dependencies on the first thing I tried it on. If anything Poetry needs more time in the oven. It also wasn't 10x faster.