Hacker News Reader

Comment by andrewshadura | Hacker News Reader

> python build, dependency and deployment management is exceptionally awful in every respect, this isn't as big a pain point in other languages

I'm not sure how to react to that, but these features in Python are miles ahead of what many other languages have (or actually don't have).

View on HN

If you compare Python's deployment and dependency management to those of statically compiled languages like Go, Rust, Zig, or Nim, you quickly see the experience with Python is quite poor.

In all the above languages, you simply ship a statically compiled binary (often just 1 file), and the user needs nothing else.

With any sufficiently complex Python project, the user will need:

1. virtualenv 2. possibly a C compiler 3. recent versions of Python (and that keeps changing. 3.0->3.4 are "ancient", and 3.6 seems to be the absolute minimum version these days --- due primarily to f-strings) 4. Or you ship a dockerfile and then the users need 600mb of Docker installed

I sometimes joke that in the future every Python script will require a K8s deployment and people will call it "easy".

Python is a great language, but deployment is a massive pain point for the language.

When I know I am writing something that has to "just work" on a wide range of systems that I don't necessarily control, well I don't write the solution in Python. I pick Go, Nim, or Rust (Zig would be a good choice too).

Or you just provide your own Python package. Most of the time that will be less than 100 MB if you don't include huge libraries. You can test and build automatically. For deployment you then have an installer or rpm that is probably smaller than most of the other enterprise software your customer's infrastructure admins are handling.

The problem is "less than 100mb" is unacceptable (for my use cases).

There are use cases where 100-300mb is no big deal and customer can handle this.

But single binary deployments with a statically compiled language where a fully-featured binary can weigh in from 5-30mb are what I'm after.

And honestly, with upx I can take even those fat Go binaries down from ~35mb to 7-8mb. That's an order of magnitude less than 100mb of Python and all it's dependencies. Not to mention with all those languages I mentioned (Go, Rust, Nim, Zig), I get multi-threading and high-performance as well.

I think there are too many options, or not enough direction for busy people. Once you understand how it all works and pick / build the right tools it all works pretty well.

I would agree for all but deployment. I know my way around python reasonably well, but pyinstaller and friends still make me have bad days pretty regularly.

Four Python projects, same customer, five different deployment systems. Docker, a Capistano look-a-like I coded in bash, git pull (their former standard), git format-patch plus scp, zip archives. Yes, python file.zip works if it contains the right files. Probably the latter is the easiest way, except it doesn't address the dependencies.

> except it doesn't address the dependencies

It does if you put them all in the zip :)

(and build for exactly the platform your customer is going to deploy on)

Python is literally decades behind. Dependency resolution is nondeterministic by default. The way you run a build is still not remotely standard (e.g.: I've downloaded the source of one of the top 20 packages on PyPI. How do I run the tests? Perl had a standard way to do that back in the '90s). Deployment is so bad that people recommend using containers as a substitute for something like fat jars.

That's just untrue. Maybe compared to C++ Python isn't too bad. But try something modern like Go, Rust or Deno. Python is light-years behind.

Am I the only one who has never had enough headache over the years to say its awful? I do think dependency management is a somewhat difficult problem to solve and a lot of systems have pros/cons but I never have had huge issues with Python's.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com