undefined | Better HN

0 pointspdimitar2y ago0 comments

Which would make the article completely redundant, and that works for me. :D

But let's be serious, they could have just said "99% of the top Python packages upgraded to our new packaging system" which would be much more informative and interesting title and would make me read it in full, as opposed to now when I just facepalmed.

0 comments

nickjj2y ago

> But let's be serious, they could have just said "99% of the top Python packages upgraded to our new packaging system" which would be much more informative and interesting title

How about "99% of the top Python packages don't require being compiled to install them".

That's one of the biggest wins of wheels. They have pre-compiled binaries for all supported platforms of that package. This typically applies to Python packages that have C dependencies.

pdimitarOP2y ago

And I would have never understood that from a cursory look at the article. Learned it just now from you.

capableweb2y ago

So without understanding the reasoning why they are not simply called "python packages" but "wheels", so they have distinct meaning, you chose to go on a tirade about why they are not simply called "packages" instead?

The confidence of some HN commentators never ceases to surprise me

1 more reply

adhesive_wombat2y ago

It's number 3 in "advantages of wheels", which is above the fold on my screen and exactly 50 words into the page, including titles.

1 more reply

gdprrrr2y ago

But the Python ecosystem reinvents package systems every few years, so that headline is also not very useful.

pdimitarOP2y ago

True, that's why I question the value of those articles in the first place.

Shawnj22y ago

That doesn’t make sense either because pure python packages exist and are actively less useful if distributed as wheels

pdimitarOP2y ago

And I have no clue what you just said. :D

It serves only as a further confusion. But yeah, Python is notorious for its numerous (and likely all sub-optimal) approaches to packaging.

Shawnj22y ago

The benefit of wheels is that they’re platform specific so that you don’t need to have a lengthy and dependency ridden compile process, you just install the one that works on your OS and architecture and you’re good. Packages written entirely in Python don’t have this problem since the code is pretty much just copied into dist-packages

1 more reply

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse

0 comments

nickjj2y ago

> But let's be serious, they could have just said "99% of the top Python packages upgraded to our new packaging system" which would be much more informative and interesting title

How about "99% of the top Python packages don't require being compiled to install them".

That's one of the biggest wins of wheels. They have pre-compiled binaries for all supported platforms of that package. This typically applies to Python packages that have C dependencies.

pdimitarOP2y ago

And I would have never understood that from a cursory look at the article. Learned it just now from you.

capableweb2y ago

The confidence of some HN commentators never ceases to surprise me

1 more reply

adhesive_wombat2y ago

It's number 3 in "advantages of wheels", which is above the fold on my screen and exactly 50 words into the page, including titles.

1 more reply

gdprrrr2y ago

But the Python ecosystem reinvents package systems every few years, so that headline is also not very useful.

pdimitarOP2y ago

True, that's why I question the value of those articles in the first place.

Shawnj22y ago

That doesn’t make sense either because pure python packages exist and are actively less useful if distributed as wheels

pdimitarOP2y ago

And I have no clue what you just said. :D

It serves only as a further confusion. But yeah, Python is notorious for its numerous (and likely all sub-optimal) approaches to packaging.

Shawnj22y ago

1 more reply

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse