• witx@lemmy.sdf.org
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    I mean, it’s still a very nice language. I can see someone, marveled by that, would endeavor to make bigger things with it. I just don’t feel it scales that well.

    • lysdexic@programming.dev
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 year ago

      I agree. The GIL and packaging woes are a good indication that it’s range of applications isn’t as extensive as other tech stacks.

      • scubbo@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 year ago

        packaging woes

        My own hot take is that I hear this criticism of Python a lot, but have never had anyone actually back it up when I ask for more details. And I will be very surprised to hear that it’s a worse situation than Java/TypeScript’s.

        • r1veRRR@feddit.de
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          1 year ago

          We used to have a Python guy at my work. For a lot of LITTLE ETL stuff he created Python projects. In two projects I’ve had to fix up now, he used different tooling. Both those toolings have failed me (Poetry, Conda). I ended up using our CI/CD pipeline code to run my local stuff, because I could not get those things to work.

          For comparison, it took me roughly zero seconds to start working on an old Go project.

          Python was built in an era where space was expensive and it was only used for small, universal scripts. In that context, having all packages be “system-wide” made sense. All the virtual env shenanigans won’t ever fix that.