Is it a mess? Yes. But, is the problem to be solved perhaps much simpler "in other languages"? Do you interface with C++ libraries, system-managed dependencies, and perhaps your GPU in these other languages? Or are all your dependencies purely coded in these other languages, making everything simpler?
Of course the answer to these questions could be anything but to me it feels like attacks on Python's package management are usually cheap shots on a much much more complicated problem domain than the "complainers" are typically aware of.
Or the "complainers" work with Rust and Elixir and giggle at Python's last-century dependency-management woes, while they run a command or two and can upgrade and/or pin their dependencies and put that in version control and have builds identical [to those on their dev machines] in their CI/CD environment.
¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Your comment hints that you are feeling personally attacked when Python is criticized. Friendly unsolicited advice: don't do that, it's not healthy for you.
Python is a relic. Its popularity and integration with super-strong C/C++ libraries has been carrying it for at least the last 5 years, if not 10. There's no mystery: it's a network effect. Quality is irrelevant when something is popular.
And yes I used Python. Hated it every time. I guess I have to thank Python for learning bash scripting well. I still ended up wasting less time.
It's a bit ironic to pick someone's up on "taking things personally upon criticism", then proceeding to display a deep, manichean, unfounded hatered for a language that, despite its numerous flaws, remains a popular and useful tool.
Hanging people upon dawn was popular as well; people even got their kids for the event and it was happening regularly. Popularity says nothing about quality or even viability.
Use Python if it's useful for you, obviously. To me though the writing is on the wall -- it's on its loooong and painful (due to people being in denial) way out.
EDIT: I don't "hate"; it was a figure of speech. Our work has no place for such emotions. I simply get "sick of" (read: become weary of) something being preached as good when it clearly is not, at least in purely technical terms. And the "hate" is not at all unfounded. Choosing to ignore what doesn't conform to your view is not an argument.
> Your comment hints that you are feeling personally attacked when Python is criticized.
I am not feeling personally attacked (I am not married to Python), I am mostly just tired of reading the same unproductive type of complaints over and over again. This attitude is not unique to Python's situation, but actually is typical to our industry. It makes me want to find a different job, on some days.
The community is trying to improve the situation but there is no way to erase Python's history. So it's always going to continue to look messy if you keep looking back. The complaint is unproductive, or in other words, not constructive.
I can agree with your comment. What's missing is the possibility to, you know, just jump ship.
You might not be married to Python but it sure looks that way for many others. I switched main languages no less than 4 times in my career and each time it was an objective improvement.
The thing that kind of makes me look down on other programmers is them refusing to move on.
For nuance and to address your point, I have worked with PHP for about six years, .NET for five, C++ for two, and Python for seven.
I still dabble in all of them. Who knows when I will move on to the next. Rust looks nice. I tried go.
But they do not yet provide any of the tools/libraries I need for my work. That's how I've always selected my programming language.
So I would first need to invent the universe before I can create valuable things. Instead I will just wait until their ecosystems mature a little more.
I will end the discussion here though. Thanks for the response!
Yes. In elixir, you can install GPU stuff (Nx) with very few problems. Some people have built some really cool tools like burrito, which cross-compile and bundles up the VMs to other architectures. Even before that it's been pretty common to cross-compile from x86 to an arm raspberry pi image in the form of Nerves.
As a rule elixir devs don't do system level dependencies, probably because of lessons learned from the hell scape that is python (and Ruby)
Yesterday I onboarded a coworker onto the elixir project, he instinctively put it into a docker container. I laughed and just told him to run it bare (he runs macos, I run Linux). There were 0 problems out of the box except I forgot the npm incantations to load up the frontend libraries.
2) not that I can find for that specific task but the typical strategy is to download (or compile) a binary, drop it into a {project-dependency}[0]-local "private assets" directory, and call out the binary. This is for example how I embed zig pl into elixir (see "zigler") without system-level dependencies. Setting this up is about 40 lines of code.
3) wx is preferred in the ecosystem over qt, but this (and openssl) are the two biggies in terms of "needs system deps", though it's possible to run without wx.
For native graphics, elixir is treading towards glfw, which doesn't have widgets, but from what I hear there are very few if any gotchas in terms of using it.
I bring up cross-compilation, because burrito allows you to cross-compile natively implemented code, e.g. bcrypt that's in a library. So libraries that need c-FFI typically don't ship binaries, they compile at build time. Burrito binds "the correct" architecture into the c-flags and enables you to cross compile c-FFI stuff, so you don't have a system level dependency.
[0] not that this has happened, but two dependencies in the same project could download different versions of the same binary and not collide with each other.
Of course the answer to these questions could be anything but to me it feels like attacks on Python's package management are usually cheap shots on a much much more complicated problem domain than the "complainers" are typically aware of.