> On Feb 23, 2017, at 4:04 AM, James Broadhead <jamesbroadh...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On 23 February 2017 at 08:36, Glyph Lefkowitz <gl...@twistedmatrix.com
> <mailto:gl...@twistedmatrix.com>> wrote:
>
> Go's build toolchain has many features worth envying but most of its
> advantages have to do with deployments _outside_ of containers, where you
> have to ship to customer environments with fraught and unknown system
> configurations. If you have any level of control over your deployment
> target, Go and, say, Python with PEX are ~equivalent .
>
> I was going to chime in about pex earlier - but since you need to provide
> your own interpreter, I didn't think it solved his whole issue.
Fully static binaries / integrated interpreters would be a good target for
build tooling to hit, but I do think that (especially if you know your
deployment platform) relying on _nothing_ but a Python interpreter, pex in any
specific Linux environment is probably doable.
> Otherwise, pex is a great format for deploying python easily.
Yep.
> At Twitter, we deployed the (Twisted) TweetDeck API using it for years, with
> a ton of dependencies, both c-libs and pure python.
This is good to know!
> Really nice to be able to produce a deployable artefact, which can be hashed
> & stored for re-deploy later if needed (and ideally integration-tested &
> staged by passing different args on the cli).
I originally felt like the lack of an interpreter made it useless, and I think
I was very much mistaken. Moshe has been showing me all the problems that pex
can address, and I'm slowly starting to adopt it in my own deployments.
-glyph
_______________________________________________
Twisted-Python mailing list
Twisted-Python@twistedmatrix.com
http://twistedmatrix.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/twisted-python
