So I’m no expert, but I have been a hobbyist C and Rust dev for a while now, and I’ve installed tons of programs from GitHub and whatnot that required manual compilation or other hoops to jump through, but I am constantly befuddled installing python apps. They seem to always need a very specific (often outdated) version of python, require a bunch of venv nonsense, googling gives tons of outdated info that no longer works, and generally seem incredibly not portable. As someone who doesn’t work in python, it seems more obtuse than any other language’s ecosystem. Why is it like this?
Python’s packaging is not great. Pip and venvs help but, it’s lightyears behind anything you’re used to. My go-to is using a venv for everything.
Python is the only programming language that has forced me to question what the difference is between an egg and a wheel.
You re not stupid, python’s packaging & versionning is PITA. as long as you write it for yourself, you re good. As soon as you want to share it, you have a problem
as long as you write it for yourself, you re good. As soon as you want to share it, you have a problem
A perfect summary of the history of computer code!
Yes it’s terrible. The only hope on the horizon is
uv
. It’s significantly better than all the other tooling (Poetry, pip, pipenv, etc.) so I think it has a good chance of reducing the options to just Pip oruv
at least.But I fully expect the Python Devs to ignore it, and maybe even make life deliberately difficult for it like they did for static analysers. They have some strange priorities sometimes.
I like the idea of
uv
, but I hate the name. Libuv is already a very popular C library, and used in everything from NodeJS to Julia to Python (through the popularuvloop
module). Every time I see someone mentionuv
I get confused and think they’re talking about uvloop until I remember the Astral project, and then reconfirm to myself how much I disapprove of their name choice.I don’t think
libuv
is really that popular, nor is it that confusing.But I do agree it’s not a very good name. “Rye” is a much better name. Probably too late anyway.
uv is good but it needs a little more time in the oven.
For the moment I would definitely recommend poetry if you are not a library developer. Poetry’s biggest sin is it’s atrocious performance but it has most of the features you need to work with Python apps today.
Why do you say it needs more time in the oven? I’ve had zero issues with it as a drop-in replacement for Pip in a large commercial project, which is an extremely impressive achievement. (And it was 10x faster.)
I tried Poetry once and it failed to resolve dependencies on the first thing I tried it on. If anything Poetry needs more time in the oven. It also wasn’t 10x faster.
UV is a game changer for python.
I hated the tooling until I found it.
Python developer here. Venv is good, venv is life. Every single project I create starts with
python3 -m venv venv
source venv/bin/activate
pip3 install {everything I need}
pip3 freeze > requirements.txt
Now write code!
Don’t forget to update your requirements.txt using pip3 freeze again anytime you add a new library with pip.
If you installed a lot of packages before starting to develop with virtual environments, some libraries will be in your OS python install and won’t be reflected in pip freeze and won’t get into your venv. This is the root of all evil. First of all, don’t do that. Second, you can force libraries to install into your venv despite them also being in your system by installing like so:
pip3 install --ignore-installed mypackage
If you don’t change between Linux and windows most libraries will just work between systems, but if you have problems on another system, just recreate the whole venv structure
rm -rf venv (…make a new venv, activate it) pip3 install -r requirements.txt
Once you get the hang of this you can make Python behave without a lot of hassle.
This is a case where a strength can also be a weakness.
pip3 freeze > requirements.txt
I hate this. Because now I have a list of your dependencies, but also the dependencies of the dependencies, and I now have regular dependencies and dev-dependencies mixed up. If I’m new to Python I would have NO idea which libraries would be the important ones because it’s a jumbled mess.
I’ve come to love
uv
(coming frompoetry
, coming frompip
with arequirements/base.txt
andrequirements/dev.txt
- gotta keep regular dependencies and dev-dependencies separate).uv sync
uv run <application>
That’s it. I don’t even need to install a compatible Python version, as
uv
takes care of that for me. It’ll automatically create a local.venv/
, and it’s blazingly fast.I’ve never really spent much time with uv, I’ll give it a try. It seems like it takes a few steps out of the process and some guesswork too.
You have been in lala land for too long. That list of things to do is insane. Venv is possibly one of the worst solutions around, but many Python devs are incapable of seeing how bad it is. Just for comparison, so you can understand, in Ruby literally everything you did is covered by one command
bundle
. On every system.OP sounds like a victim of Python 3, finding various Python 2 projects on the internet, a venv isn’t going to help
This is the way
This is the way.
It’s a stupid way
everyone focuses on the tooling, not many are focusing on the reason: python is extremely dynamic. like, magic dynamic you can modify a module halfway through an import, you can replace class attributes and automatically propagate to instances, you can decompile the bytecode while it’s running.
combine this with the fact that it’s installed by default and used basically everywhere and you get an environment that needs to be carefully managed for the sake of the system.
js has this packaging system down pat, but it has the advantage that it got mainstream in a sandboxed isolated environment before it started leaking out into the system. python was in there from the beginning, and every change breaks someone’s workflow.
the closest language to look at for packaging is probably lua, which has similar issues. however since lua is usually not a standalone application platform it’s not a big deal there.
and yet that all works fine in Ruby, which came out around the same time as Python and yet has had Bundler for 15 years now.
Python - 15+ package managers and build tools Ruby - 1
the closest language to look at for packaging is probably lua, which has similar issues. however since lua is usually not a standalone application platform it’s not a big deal there.
no the closest language is literally Ruby, it’s almost the exact same language, except the tooling isn’t insane and it came out only a few years after python.
good point, ruby is a good comparison. although, ruby is very different under the hood. it’s magically dynamic in a completely different way, and it also never really got the penetration on the system level that python did.
none of this is to take away from the fact that python packaging is bad. i know how to work it because i’ve been programming in python for 14 years, but trying to teach people makes the problem obvious. and yet.
Python never had much of a central design team. People mostly just scratched their own itch, so you get lots of different tools that do only a small part each, and aren’t necessarily compatible.
The reason you do stuff in a venv is to isolate that environment from other python projects on your system, so one Python project doesn’t break another. I use Docker for similar reasons for a lot of non-Python projects.
A lot of Python projects involve specific versions of libraries, because things break. I’ve had similar issues with non-Python projects. I’m not sure I’d say Python is particularly worse about it.
There are tools in place that can make the sharing of Python projects incredibly easy and portable and consistent, but I only ever see the best maintained projects using them unfortunately.
Python is hacky, because it hacks. There’s a bunch of ways you can do anything. You can run it on numerous platforms, or even on web assembly. It’s not maintained centrally. Each “app” you find is just somebodies hack project they’re sharing with you for fun.
Python is the new Perl
After using python, I’m of the opinion that perl was much cleaner.
Nothing comes close to Perl’s abuse of global variables. Oh you called this function? Take a guess which global variables it will use.
Yes. Its line noise was of a much higher quality. 😉
On that note, I’m hesitant between writing my scripts in perl or python right now. Bash prevent sharing with Windows peoples… I just want to provide easy wrappers tools that are usually aroud 10 lines of shell, but testers ain’t on linux so they cannot use them.
I don’t know perl, but each time I interract with pyton’s projects I have a different venv/poetry/… to setup. Forget adout it the next time and nothing is kept easy to reuse.
Perl isn’t really any better. There aren’t easy tools that do the same thing as venv. They exist, but they are not easy. Plus there are a much larger amount of cpan modules that have c in them than python.
I agree. Python is my language of choice 80% or so of the time.
But my god, it does packaging badly! Especially if it’s dependent on linking to compiled code!
Why it is like that, I couldn’t tell. The language is older than git, so that might be part of it.
However, you’re installing python libraries from github? I very very rarely have to do that. In what context do you have to do that regularly?
No it’s not. E.g. nobody who starts a new project uses setup.py anymore
Are you sure? I’m not very active in that ecosystem, but if that was prevalent in the past, surely there’s still tutorials and stuff out there that people would follow and create such projects even today?
More than that, it seems to me that the official python docs for packaging [still] talks about setup.py. Why would people not use that?
Sure, there was some hyperbole. Some people need some specific setuptools plugin or something. Almost nobody.
when the official docs are telling you to use it, then it’s used. You can have no expectation of people to think the tooling isn’t shit when it’s literally the official recommendation.
It doesn’t. read the first words behind the link you posted:
Page Status: Outdated
Here is the actual one: https://packaging.python.org/en/latest/tutorials/packaging-projects/
OP seems to be trying to install older projects, rather than creating a new project.
The venv stuff is pretty annoying, I agree.
As a baby Python Dev, I’m glad it’s not just me.
I’ve been full time writing python professionally since 2015. You get used to it. It starts to just make sense and feel normal. Then when you move to a different language environment you wonder why their tooling doesn’t use a virtualenv.
I’m starting to get the hang of it. I was using Debian, so I had to figure out the basics of venv because many of the frameworks I was trying to learn require newer versions of Python than what comes with Debian.
vscodium works really easily inside it though, so it wasn’t too bad, but I still feel like I’m treading water a little bit.
I’ve started using poetry and the experience has improved.
With all the hype surrounding Python it’s easy to forget that it’s a really old language. And, in my opinion, the leadership is a bit of a mess so there hasn’t been any concerted effort on standardizing tooling.
Some unsolicited advice from somebody who is used more refined build environments but is doing a lot of Python these days:
The whole
venv
thing isn’t too bad once you get the hang of it. But be prepared for people to tell you that you’re using the wrong venv for reasons you’ll never quit understand or likely need to care about. Just use the bundled “python -m venv venv” and you’ll be fine despite other “better” alternatives. It’s bundled so it’s always available to you. And feel free to just drop/recreate your venv whenever you like or need. They’re ephemeral and pretty large once you’ve installed a lot of things.Use “pipx” to install python applications you want to use as programs rather than libraries. It creates and manages venvs for them so you don’t get library conflicts. Something like “pip-tools” for example (pipx install pip-tools).
Use “pyenv” to manage installed python versions - it’s a bit like “sdkman” for the JVM ecosystem and makes it easy to deal with the “specific versions of python” stuff.
For dependencies for an app - I just create a requirements.txt and “pip install -r requirements.txt” for the most part… Though I should use one of the 80 better ways to do it because they can help with updating versions automatically. Those tools mostly also just spit out a requirements.txt in the end so it’s pretty easy to migrate to them. pip-tools is what my team is moving towards and it seems a reasonable option. YMMV.
This.
venv
pip-toolsSpecify your primary dependencies in pyproject.toml and use pip-compile to keep stuff locked in requirements.txt to exact versions (or even hashes).
Though after working with cargo a bit, I would love to have all of this in a first-class program, hope uv can get there.
venv nonsense
I mean, the fact that it isn’t more end-user invisible to me is annoying, and I wish that it could also include a version of Python, but I think that venv is pretty reasonable. It handles non-systemwide library versioning in what I’d call a reasonably straightforward way. Once you know how to do it, works the same way for each Python program.
Honestly, if there were just a frontend on venv that set up any missing environment and activated the venv, I’d be fine with it.
And I don’t do much Python development, so this isn’t from a “Python awesome” standpoint.
pyenv and uv let you install and switch between multiple Python versions.
As for uv, those come from the Python build standalone project, if I remember correctly, pyenv also installs from there, but don’t quote me on that.