Why not use conda for dependency management & packaging? The GH page makes no mention of conda. Not sure if it's all that different from Poetry, as I haven't used it yet. I do wonder, however, if this is yet another new tool when there exist more mature solutions.
From the documentation, the move to a single file for build & dependency specification is great. conda requires a rather Byzantine set of files with specific names at specific relative locations, which is troublesome.
From first-glance, Poetry seems the best of the new generation of package managers. I do not like pipenv.
When the overhead for miniconda distributed is ~50mb, the python packages I use are ~500-750mb. I don't understand why this is such a point of contention in this community.
5 comments
[ 0.19 ms ] story [ 28.2 ms ] threadFrom the documentation, the move to a single file for build & dependency specification is great. conda requires a rather Byzantine set of files with specific names at specific relative locations, which is troublesome.
It's also a packaging tool, which means you can build and publish packages with (on PyPI for instance).
And finally, it always creates a virtualenv for each project so that you always work isolated from the global Python installation.
When the overhead for miniconda distributed is ~50mb, the python packages I use are ~500-750mb. I don't understand why this is such a point of contention in this community.