Re:An opinionated history of programming languages
by notacoward on Sunday October 04, 2020 @08:46AM
(#24678615)
> R has a great packaing system, and it copied Perl
I almost used Perl as an example of Python's inverse - a crappy language wrapped in a good packaging system. For its time CPAN was pretty great. All of the things today that people are likely to hold up as being better drew inspiration from it.
> which is much older than Python
Perl 1987, Python 1989. So yes it's older, but much older?
Re:An opinionated history of programming languages
by disgruntledphd2 on Sunday October 04, 2020 @10:09AM
(#24679170)
Fair, I realised that the difference wasn't that large after I posted.
I'm just so annoyed by Python's (lack of a) packaging system that it makes me prone to hyperbole. It's been frustrating me at work all week, and I suspect that it will be a low-grade annoyance for me in my career for the next few years, as I'm a Data Scientist and hence need to deal with Python a lot.
Re:An opinionated history of programming languages
by int_19h on Monday October 05, 2020 @12:28AM
(#24684565)
pip is a packaging system, and it ships out of the box with Python. It may not be the best one around, but there certainly isn't a lack of one.
Re:An opinionated history of programming languages
by disgruntledphd2 on Monday October 05, 2020 @04:52AM
(#24685819)
Does it ensure that packages in the environment are consistent with one another? If not, I'm not sure what it does that curl won't do.
Did you know that pip won't even resolve dependencies, and will break your programs silently? I certainly didn't, because Python wasn't my first language and therefore I assumed that the package manager will handle dependencies.
Like seriously, when a language designed by statisticians for statisticians (R) has a better packaging story than everyone's second favourite language, something has gone horribly wrong.