• im_fine_sandy@nord.pub
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    10
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    edit-2
    11 hours ago

    I have lots of experience with node and a little with python.

    Python seems great for working with large data sets and I really like jupyter notebooks. The available libraries are really great.

    However, the thought of installing a Python CLI app makes me twitchy.

    I suspect that node has all the same problems and that I’m used to working around them, but all the Python environment stuff is a nightmare.

    Edit: dear python dweebs: I don’t care.

    • MangoCats@feddit.it
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      7 hours ago

      The available libraries are the ONLY excuse for Python.

      When you need tools more sophisticated (and labor intense) than your tool to make your tool functional, it’s time to re-examine your choice of toolchain.

    • esc@piefed.social
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      12
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      14 hours ago

      Yeah, absolute nightmare of writing pipx install programname.

    • Joe@discuss.tchncs.de
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      12 hours ago

      Python is great for standalone scripts/CLIs with standard system dependencies. For actual apps you want venvs, probably managed by uv these days.

      I’ve written 1000s of python CLIs/scripts over the years, typically wrapping APIs for otherwise shitty enterprise and SaaS software (also many one-off scripts for ETL).

      Nowadays, AI writes these scripts in a fraction of the time (and reads the shitty API docs / otherwise figures it out) and my CLI toolkit is better than ever (with $0 ongoing cost). Calling MCPs from CLIs is also interesting, as some vendors never had usable APIs before now.

    • grue@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      14 hours ago

      Python environment/packaging sucks, but at least the language itself doesn’t.

      • MangoCats@feddit.it
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        7 hours ago

        I learned basic programming in BASIC in the 80s. Back then when you needed more speed, you grafted in assembly calls, and the speed difference was dramatic.

        Straight Python feels as slow as BASIC - it’s got nifty speedy library calls to stuff written in other languages, but if you need something that’s not available in a library, now you’re writing a library function for Python, in another language, and why not just write the whole thing in that other language and ditch the heavy toolchain?

      • esc@piefed.social
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        13 hours ago

        It’s fine actually, all of the problemswith python packaging and env are overblown to insane degree.

        • grue@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          edit-2
          11 hours ago

          I used to work at a place that used Jython (which never got updated to Python 3, BTW) and was responsible for trying to keep that shit working even as various libraries started dropping Python 2 support.

          I still get a thousand-yard stare when I think about it.

          (Still worth it vs. writing actual Java code, though.)

          • esc@piefed.social
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            12 hours ago

            Yep, they are.

            Just recently there was an article here, where a person claimed that recommended python tooling is inadequate because they needes to read two paragraphs of documentation. Endemic problem really.