Yeah. And I’m still digesting it - but I agree with most of what you said.
And I can see why “yet another approach” is just making the problem worse. But what I like here is that it’s specifically trying to solve for the whole project lifecycle model that @njs linked to above (and I’ve referenced many times in the past). Most tools and approaches I’ve seen either frame themselves as “beginner friendly” (stage 1 and maybe 2), or as aimed at stage 3 (deployable webapp/reusable library/standalone app) and later. And both groups assume that stages 1 and 2 - “simple scripts” and “sharing with others” are beginner workflows, not needed by more advanced users[1]. Or at least, that’s how the documentation, examples and discussions feel to me.
I’ve no idea whether this project will succeed in unifying the full lifecycle described in that document. I don’t know if it’ll make our existing problems worse. I’m concerned about the fact that it’s inventing new mechanisms for things like isolation that may or may not work. I suspect that a model based around heavy manipulation of sys.path will cause huge problems for the static typing community, for example. But I’m pleased that someone is looking at a problem which I feel like struggled to express well enough to get the existing tools to pay attention to[2], and I’m glad that we’re still innovating, and not just fighting to consolidate what we have and deal with legacy issues.