> Why is that hard for the Python community to come up with a single tool to rule them all?
Design by committee is hard. Especially building consensus around reconsidering what at this point should be considered bad design. Python has a few decades of that. It took decades for the to even consider starting the process of removing the GIL, which is a great example of "it's clearly broken but lets not fix it". Packaging is the same.
These guys are laser focused on just fixing things the right way and that's what it takes,
There seems to be a lot of movement around some of these topics. The Gil is being removed, python's performance issues are meling away with recent releases, and things like uv are happening. I like it.
> It took decades for the to even consider starting the process of removing the GIL,
This is not true. Discussions about removing the GIL have been ongoing for decades. There were some abortive attempts over the years but it is regarded as quite the technical challenge, and has implications for compatibility with code written in C.
> which is a great example of "it's clearly broken but lets not fix it".
Design by committee is hard. Especially building consensus around reconsidering what at this point should be considered bad design. Python has a few decades of that. It took decades for the to even consider starting the process of removing the GIL, which is a great example of "it's clearly broken but lets not fix it". Packaging is the same.
These guys are laser focused on just fixing things the right way and that's what it takes,
There seems to be a lot of movement around some of these topics. The Gil is being removed, python's performance issues are meling away with recent releases, and things like uv are happening. I like it.