The same things that prevented "community" from building the tool in the first place

PaulHoule 6 hours ago | parent | next [-]

i think the main problem was that people didn't believe that pip was broken, or didn't think there was any value in a 100% correct package manager over a 97% correct package manager (e.g. misread "worse is better")

I had the problem basically understood in 2018 and I am still pissed that everybody wanted to keep taking their chances with pip just like they like to gamble with agent coders today.

Now that people know a decent package manager is possible in Python I think there is going to be no problem getting people to maintain one.

	▲	pxc 4 hours ago \| parent [-]
		Idk how anyone could sustain the impression that pip was not broken unless they had basically never used anything else (including Linux package managers) long enough to have even a basic understanding of it. And that's a big part of what's so frustrating about Python generally: it seems to be a language used by lots of people who've never used anything else and have an attitude like "why would I ever try anything else"? Python has a culture where nominal values of user-friendliness, pragmatism, and simplicity often turn into plain old philistinism.

▲

zem 7 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

that makes zero sense to me. developing something like ruff from scratch takes a lot of things happening - someone having the idea, the time to develop it from scratch in their free time, or the money to do it as a job, and perhaps the need to find collaborators if it's too large a project for one person. but now ruff is there, there's no need to build it from scratch. if I wanted to build a python linter or formatter I would simply fork ruff and build on top of it. as others have said in this subthread, that's the whole point of open source!

▲

johnisgood 8 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Cannot we at one point consider the tool to be "done"? I mean, what is there to constantly change and improve? Genuinely curious. It sounds like a tool that can be finished. Can it not be?

	▲	influx 7 hours ago \| parent [-]
		You’d be surprised how many features the Python runtime adds each release. It’s not trivial for tooling to keep up with language changes.