Paul Moore <p.f.moore <at> gmail.com> writes: > > Another division (Not one I'll try to blame on setuptools, though ) > > Some people find larger, stable, unified packages more useful. Others > find fine-grained, rapidly developing packages more useful. > > It sounds like Antoine and I fall into the former camp. At the risk of > generalising, maybe the latter philosophy fits the "web developer" > mental model better?
I don't think it's a question of mental model. Whatever your mentality, having O(N) libraries means you have O(N**2) potential interdependencies to worry about (especially when those libraries are socially and functionally part of a larger ensemble). When N is 30 or 100, it's easy to see where it leads: loss of control, unmanageability, irresponsibility. The argument that you can individually upgrade each micro-library is a double-edged sword: individual upgrades can break the interaction with other micro-libraries because of subtle changes in API or behaviour. If you post on the framework's mailing-list to get help with the problem, the framework authors are unable to tell you how to solve it because /even they/ can't master the O(N**2) interdependencies. Then you must upgrade the other micro-libraries as well, which is no better than having a large cohesive package where everything evolves in lockstep by construction. (by the way, I don't think it's setuptools' fault... that's why I've used quotes in the title. People have simply abused a tool, the same way "DLL hell" is an abuse of the shared library system) Regards Antoine. _______________________________________________ Python-Dev mailing list Python-Dev@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
