the irony here is python packaging has sucked forever, and this is just another example of it. "Do more with less" has never entered the average python developers mind.
you'd think herd mentality might help it but it only creates more packaging solutions.
Now days, I've stopped using python outside of tiny scripts and I will never touch it for a large project.
The problem with Python is it's too successful. It has too many useful libraries. I don't really like it very much but it's really hard to ignore it.
There is exactly one thing I miss from Python packaging tools: developer mode. I can factor out parts of an application into a library and develop both at the same time by installing the library in editable mode and pointing to the library's local directory. This is something I've always wanted but never had in every other language I know. Only god knows how much time I spent trying to do exactly this with git submodules.
Good to know. Never tried Julia myself but I see a lot of Julia posts here. I'm also aware it has a really interesting foreign interface with Python, never saw anything like that before.
> Maybe because it’s developed as a core part of the language.
Always thought it was strange how libraries and packaging never seem to be considered part of the language. My favorite example is Scheme: a beautifully minimal language but with no library support and the result was endless fragmentation due to unportable implementations.
I'm not sure I understand this. Do you mean having an app instance using library code from local git instead of pip package? I do that all the time with a Makefile and some symlinks.
Yeah. Pip already has that feature built in. I've hacked up partial solutions for some other languages but they're not as seamless. For C I tried git submodules but it's not really designed for that.
you'd think herd mentality might help it but it only creates more packaging solutions.
Now days, I've stopped using python outside of tiny scripts and I will never touch it for a large project.