Asking people to run `pip install` on anything but `poetry` is an anti-pattern to me. Ruby has had bundler for over a decade and this is the pattern that is working for them as well as npm/yarn. Npm comes with node, Cargo comes with Rust so the debate is somewhat reduced.
Since quality of life tools and other soft things are hard to prove, I'll tell my anecdata story point. I sought out any package manager experience in python. I landed on Pipenv which uses pip. It failed to solve the tree. This led me to find poetry and the reason for existing which is exactly my experience. That was 2-3 years ago.
In legacy (don't break anything) mode, there's still no reason to not switch. I export `requirements.txt` with poetry just for pip legacy reasons and it works great. If I just update some scripts, I could avoid it. It's running all the time in CI, it's exercised quite a bit.
What's wrong with just using pip and requirements.txt? There's no dev section. In addition, bumping deps is not the same. I have a blog post explaining semver updates to a python dev:
my strong assertion: Python and Go missed it from the start. That's why it is so confusing. There's no other choice in Rust but Cargo. Rust devs are never confused on how to add a package, semver it. The answer is always Cargo. It's in the tutorial. It's in the book. It's in the culture.
I think I've heard that pip might support the pyproject spec, poetry already does. If you want scripts like npm, you can have that too with "taskipy". You don't have to.
Gobuffalo is close but it's been a while since I've looked at it. What you said is has been my experience too.
Here I go about the batteries included vs micro thing. People pick Flask because it looks approachable but then DIY features in. The same thing happens with Sinatra+Rails. If the python ecosystem grows and other communities come in, maybe they will bring their culture and standards in.
Take poetry for python. It's basically, "hey ... cargo/yarn/mix/bundler all kind of figured out these ergonomics". Poetry's "why" section in the README really resonated with me. Cross pollination of ideas across tribes is _good_.
But then, I'm biased/blub-paradox of course. And it's definitely in line with the productivity/DSLs/rapid vs types/verbosity/slower modes discussion.
Gamedev is full of interesting problems. The industry scares me because of a few friends. Fun to hack on, on the side and I’m jealous of the story and mystery this team got to chew on for a while. I know it’s hard but still jealous of these gems.
Sun was ahead of its time in many ways. I used a Sunblade and never thought of it again until this article and its relation. Interesting.
I've thought a lot about zones and Docker. I remember booting a zone for the first time on Solaris (copies the kernel) and was amazed at how fast it booted. It had a lot of the same things (volumes that are mounted). I used to explain Docker as Solaris zones sometimes but no one knows what Solaris is.
I wonder if Akka will be a part of scala native? It's sort of considered stdlib? When our team spiked on Akka, we liked it and got our near-reality proof of concept to work. It'd be awesome to have such a high level library like Akka compile to a binary.
I probably wasn't being clear about STDOUT on the ruby version. I just didn't do it in this particular project for the ruby version. I just tested that the flags didn't throw anything. I had tests on other production tools and yeah $stdout saving is nice.
Someone mentioned on reddit me about a CLI testing framework that perhaps does a more holistic job of testing STDOUT.
I think of Rake/Rails as dev tools that are executables. In the post, I mentioned passenger because that was using Rubygems as a distribution mechanism and then they stopped doing that. I don't know if it's a hard / fast rule or even who would enforce that rule ... I was just mentioning that maybe it's an anti-pattern?
Development tools often are, but almost never exclusively using ruby gems and it's certainly not a universal practice. ANd of course non-dev tools can't be distributed this way.
I'd also just like to call positive attention to the bravery and openness Mike has shown by publishing his revenue/business numbers (which maybe some would hold as precious private information). He's been very open in hopes of inspiring and giving back. It's not just the code that he's open sourced but a path and pattern. This is pretty special in the best use of the word.
This is exactly why I disclosed my revenue: people won't know there's a successful path forward unless it's disclosed. I want more OSS developers to follow my lead and build a bright future for themselves based on their awesome software.
Anything that increases feedback and visualization is great. It's not about the storage of the code it's about the communication paths between the programmer and the computer and making that higher bandwidth and quick turn-around. I love what I see with saving the session (lisp state) and replaying it.
If not this, then this idea. Or this idea with more time and features. Impressive already.
Since quality of life tools and other soft things are hard to prove, I'll tell my anecdata story point. I sought out any package manager experience in python. I landed on Pipenv which uses pip. It failed to solve the tree. This led me to find poetry and the reason for existing which is exactly my experience. That was 2-3 years ago.
https://github.com/python-poetry/poetry#why
Combine this with asdf and it aligns with most other languages.
In legacy (don't break anything) mode, there's still no reason to not switch. I export `requirements.txt` with poetry just for pip legacy reasons and it works great. If I just update some scripts, I could avoid it. It's running all the time in CI, it's exercised quite a bit.What's wrong with just using pip and requirements.txt? There's no dev section. In addition, bumping deps is not the same. I have a blog post explaining semver updates to a python dev:
https://squarism.com/2021/09/10/sciencing-out-updates/
my strong assertion: Python and Go missed it from the start. That's why it is so confusing. There's no other choice in Rust but Cargo. Rust devs are never confused on how to add a package, semver it. The answer is always Cargo. It's in the tutorial. It's in the book. It's in the culture.
I think I've heard that pip might support the pyproject spec, poetry already does. If you want scripts like npm, you can have that too with "taskipy". You don't have to.