[HN Gopher] Rye: A Vision Continued
___________________________________________________________________
Rye: A Vision Continued
Author : ksbrooksjr
Score : 125 points
Date : 2024-02-04 10:15 UTC (12 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (lucumr.pocoo.org)
(TXT) w3m dump (lucumr.pocoo.org)
| nindalf wrote:
| I think it's interesting that rye uses ruff
| (https://github.com/astral-sh/ruff) for linting and formatting.
| That's the right call, and it's also correct to bundle that in
| for an integrated dev experience.
|
| I had to guess, that's the path that the Astral team would take
| as well - expand ruff's capabilities so it can do everything a
| Python developer needs. So the vision that Armin is describing
| here might be achieved by ruff eventually. They'd have an
| advantage that they're not a single person maintenance team, but
| the disadvantage of needing to show a return to their investors.
| the_mitsuhiko wrote:
| I really just want the end result :)
| mikkom wrote:
| I'm usually using conda (mamba) nowadays as it also has binary
| support so I can use cuda etc. easily for deep learning purposes.
| Is this something Rye can also do?
| kamikaz1k wrote:
| What is binary support?
| mikkom wrote:
| Direct support for binary packages, for example gpu specific
| non open source drivers etc
| aldanor wrote:
| Binary packages compiled for your platform.
|
| More generally, any non-Python packages (e.g. libwhatever, or
| some binary utilities).
| claytonjy wrote:
| Doesn't this work pretty well everywhere else now, too?
|
| Torch at least is easy to pip install, as is poetry if you skip
| all the versions that were mispackaged.
|
| It's unclear to me what the benefit of conda is these days,
| other than making it much harder to reproduce your environment
| on other machines.
| imjonse wrote:
| It allows installing non-python packages too for one, like
| the CUDA runtime.
| seanhunter wrote:
| I've been using rye for all of my python projects and it has
| generally been great. There's a slightly annoying piece at the
| beginning when you first set up a project because "rye init"
| doesn't actually produce a valid empty project - you have to add
| a few lines to pyproject.toml, but it certainly beats a lot of
| the other things I've used.
| p5v wrote:
| How does Rye compare to Poetry?
| Narushia wrote:
| Here's a handy Venn diagram which shows where Rye currently
| sits in the ecosystem:
| https://alpopkes.com/posts/python/figures/venn_diagram.png
|
| Poetry and Rye mostly do the same things, but Rye
| additionally does Python version management. I was personally
| recently reminded* that not only should one use dedicated
| environments for their projects, but also lock their specific
| Python versions.
|
| I've used Rye so far for Python/package/env management, and
| it does the job just fine.
|
| * (I upgraded from Fedora 38 to Fedora 39, which also bumped
| the system Python version from 3.11 to 3.12. And all of my
| virtual environments said _boom_.) : ')
| forrestthewoods wrote:
| I adamantly believe that software projects should never
| rely on system dependencies. It's just a totally broken
| concept and fundamentally bad idea, imho.
| seanhunter wrote:
| Way faster to do dependency resolution for one. It also uses
| ruff for linting which is crazy fast also. So all in all it's
| a better and more productive dev experience as far as I'm
| concerned. Ig also encourages you to lock down specific
| versions of python whuch helps prevent catastrophic
| dependency problems on system upgrades.
|
| Otoh it's definitely newer and there are still rough edges
| from time to time.
| theusus wrote:
| Regarding one man project. I always think of contributing back to
| the community. But things are not at all simple. I wish
| developers of projects would do weekly knowledge sharing videos.
| Or at least record themselves going through the code.
| theusus wrote:
| Also, I keep hitting myself in the wall when installing 3.12
| Python
| the_mitsuhiko wrote:
| I have been considering doing that but I wasn't sure if there
| was appetite.
| theusus wrote:
| Now, there is at least one stomach ;)
| smitty1e wrote:
| The sooner python packaging has a sane story, the sooner
| people will wonder why it took so jolly long.
|
| For those lacking time/skill to contribute, how can we
| support?
| the_mitsuhiko wrote:
| > For those lacking time/skill to contribute, how can we
| support?
|
| Improving documentation, spreading the word, giving
| feedback. Honestly anything helps.
| simonw wrote:
| Are you looking for material that helps you understand the
| process open source developers use to create and maintain their
| projects?
| elbear wrote:
| I'm guessing he's talking about project-specific knowledge.
| odiroot wrote:
| Going for pip-tools, twine, virtualenv and build makes sense. But
| I wished he went for black instead. Ruff is not there yet.
| _ZeD_ wrote:
| ruff seems better than black to me
| carso wrote:
| When did you last evaluate it? I have been using ruff for
| advent of code (low stakes project) -- last year it still felt
| a little beta-ish, this year it seemed more ready for prime
| time.
| edfletcher_t137 wrote:
| This is an impressive effort, no doubt. And Python packaging is
| in a woeful state. But I'm sorry, the _last_ thing the ecosystem
| needs it _another_ alternative!
|
| https://chriswarrick.com/blog/2023/01/15/how-to-improve-pyth...
| https://xkcd.com/927/
| forrestthewoods wrote:
| Ask me how I know you didn't read the article.
| edfletcher_t137 wrote:
| LOL I surely did, it even explicitly says:
|
| "I did not feel well throwing yet another Python packaging
| tool into the ring.
|
| Yet it exists now and has user. (sic)"
|
| TL;DR: I knew it was a bad idea, but I did it anyway.
|
| But I wouldn't have had to, anyway. Because I know how names
| work: "Rye" is not in the set of current named tools. Doesn't
| matter that it wraps them. It becomes one by doing so, and
| now we have 15.
| forrestthewoods wrote:
| Your first comment irked me because it adds zero value to
| the discussion. You lazily threw out XKCD 927 which the Rye
| author explicitly mentioned themselves.
|
| If you click into their link "Should Rye Exist" [1] you'll
| see that XKCD 927 is literally the first sentence and full
| width image.
|
| [1] https://github.com/mitsuhiko/rye/discussions/6
| VagabundoP wrote:
| I'm about to do a full rewrite/refactor of my flask app and will
| be starting fresh with Rye. I was using a cobbled together
| pyenv+virtualenv+bunch of other tools to manage it all, but was
| spending too much time on environment setup/upkeep when I was not
| on my main laptop.
|
| Rye is a one stop shop for everything that I need.
| oritsnile wrote:
| I really like Rye and have used it a lot. Lately I've been using
| pixi more and more because of its cross-platform locking support,
| since I develop on Mac and deploy mostly to Linux. It also
| supports all cobda packages, which can be a big advantage.
| tootie wrote:
| Not to dig on this project, but I find it constantly befuddling
| how awful the Python dev ecosystem is. And has barely improved
| after a decade of being so popular. The ergonomics of coding with
| Java or C# in 2010 are still so far beyond anything in Python in
| 2024, I constantly question why it's so popular.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2024-02-04 23:00 UTC)