pyflow VS rfcs

Very cool! Of note, I made something along these lines a few years ago, although with a slightly broader scope to also include managing and installing python versions. I abandoned it due to lack of free time, and edge cases breaking things. The major challenge is that Python packages that aren't wheels can do surprising things due to setup.py running arbitrary code. (https://github.com/David-OConnor/pyflow)

Pyflow

Pyflow takes care of the use when you need pyenv to isolate different python versions, pipx to isolate some global python-based tools, and isolated, reproducible builds per project with on tool. I highly recommend people to give it go.

https://github.com/David-OConnor/pyflow#a-thoroughly-biased-...

Pyflow is a similar implementation of PEP582. NGL I wonder if it's better because of how good Rust stuff is. Probably a lot faster. Looks like you can install it via Pypi. I should've tested it before moving to PDM. Though it seems dev is a bit slow. Hmmm.

I’m personally complaining that pip is so much behind cargo. I have some hope with Pyflow though.

I literally stumbled into this issue again today. Has anyone leveraged Pyflow before? It looks pretty slick for keeping things organized. I don't do heavy dev work, just need something to keep things generally tidy. Was curious if anyone had used it and their opinion on it.

PDM is pretty new so it’s not entirely clear how it’ll play out but if you’re interested in PEP 582 then it’s really that or pyflow.

It's a good safeguard, and it's going in the direction of the other initiatives to make python package management default behavior saner.

PEP 852 is the another one to follow up: https://www.python.org/dev/peps/pep-0582/

It basically uses the concept of node_modules, making python interpreters local any local __pypackages__ directory. There are 2 differences though:

- unlike JS, python can only have one version of one lib

- but since having several versions of python often matters, you may have several __pypackages__/X.Y sub dirs to catter to each of them

It does also force you to use "-m" to use commands, which is the best practice anyway. I hope it will make jupyter fix "-m" on windows for them because that's a blocker for beginners.

If you are not already using "-m", start now. It solves a lot of different problems with running python cli programs.

E.G: instead of running "black" or "pylint", do "python -m black" or "python -m pylint". Or course you may want to chose a specific version of python, so "python3.8 -m black" for unix, or "py -3.8 -m black" on windows.

To test out __pypackages__, give a try to the pdm project: https://github.com/pdm-project/pdm

At last, some other tools that I wish people knew more about that solves packaging issues:

- pyflow (https://github.com/David-OConnor/pyflow): it's a package manager like poetry, but it also install whatever python you want like pyenv. Except it provides the binary, no need to compile anything. It's a young project, but I wish it succeeds because it's really a great concept.

- shiv (shiv.readthedocs.io/): it leverage the concept of zipapp, meaning the ability that python has to execute python inside a zip file. It's a successor to pex. Basically it lets you bundle your code + all deps from virtualenv inside a zip, like a Java .war file. You can then run the resulting zip, a .pyz file, like if it was a regular .py file. It will unzip on the first run automatically. It makes deployment almost as easy as with golang.

- nuitka (shiv.readthedocs.io/): take your code and all dependancies, turn them into C, and compiles it. Although it does require a bit of setup, since it needs headers and a compiler, it results reliably in a standalone compiled executable that will run on the same architecture with no need for anything else. Also it will speed up your Python program, up to 4 times.

RFC: Add large language models to Rust

https://github.com/rust-lang/rfcs/pull/3603

Man, SO and family has really gone downhill. That top answer is absolutely terrible. In fact, if you care, you can literally look at the RFC discussion here to see the actual debate: https://github.com/rust-lang/rfcs/pull/582

Basically, `for x in y` is kind of redundant, already sorta-kinda supported by itertools, and there's also a ton of macros that sorta-kinda do it already. It would just be language bloat at this point.

Literally has nothing to do with memory management.

Congrats!

> Similarly, uv does not yet generate a platform-agnostic lockfile. This matches pip-tools, but differs from Poetry and PDM, making uv a better fit for projects built around the pip and pip-tools workflows.

Do you expect to make the higher level workflow independent of requirements.txt / support a platform-agnostic lockfile? Being attached to Rye makes me think "no".

Without being platform agnostic, to me this is dead-on-arrival and unable to meet the "Cargo for Python" aim.

> uv supports alternate resolution strategies. By default, uv follows the standard Python dependency resolution strategy of preferring the latest compatible version of each package. But by passing --resolution=lowest, library authors can test their packages against the lowest-compatible version of their dependencies. (This is similar to Go's Minimal version selection.)

> uv allows for resolutions against arbitrary target Python versions. While pip and pip-tools always resolve against the currently-installed Python version (generating, e.g., a Python 3.12-compatible resolution when running under Python 3.12), uv accepts a --python-version parameter, enabling you to generate, e.g., Python 3.7-compatible resolutions even when running under newer versions.

This is great to see though!

I can understand it being a flag on these lower level, directly invoked dependency resolution operations.

While you aren't onto the higher level operations yet, I think it'd be useful to see if there is any cross-ecosystem learning we can do for my MSRV RFC: https://github.com/rust-lang/rfcs/pull/3537

How are you handling pre-releases in you resolution? Unsure how much of that is specified in PEPs. Its something that Cargo is weak in today but we're slowly improving.

In the early days of Rust there was a debate about whether to support "green threads" and in doing that require runtime support. It was actually implemented and included for a time but it creates problems when trying to do library or embedded code. At the time Go for example chose to go that route, and it was both nice (goroutines are nice to write and well supported) and expensive (effectively requires GC etc). I don't remember the details but there is a Rust RFC from when they removed green threads:

https://github.com/rust-lang/rfcs/blob/0806be4f282144cfcd55b...

I did some more digging. By RFC 899, I believe Alex Crichton meant PR 899 in this repo:

https://github.com/rust-lang/rfcs/pull/899

Still, no real discussion of why unbuffered stderr.

Rust has had a stable SIMD vector API[1] for a long time. But, it's architecture specific. The portable API[2] isn't stable yet, but you probably can't use the portable API for some of the more exotic uses of SIMD anyway. Indeed, that's true in .NET's case too[3].

Rust does all this SIMD too. It just isn't in the standard library. But the regex crate does it. Indeed, this is where .NET got its SIMD approach for multiple substring search from in the first place[4]. ;-)

You're right that Rust's standard library is conservatively vectorized though[5]. The main thing blocking this isn't the lack of SIMD availability. It's more about how the standard library is internally structured, and the fact that things like substring search are not actually defined in `std` directly, but rather, in `core`. There are plans to fix this[6].

[1]: https://doc.rust-lang.org/std/arch/index.html

[2]: https://doc.rust-lang.org/std/simd/index.html

[3]: https://github.com/dotnet/runtime/blob/72fae0073b35a404f03c3...

[4]: https://github.com/dotnet/runtime/pull/88394#issuecomment-16...

[5]: https://github.com/BurntSushi/memchr#why-is-the-standard-lib...

[6]: https://github.com/rust-lang/rfcs/pull/3469