PEP 722: Dependency specification for single-file scripts

Your emotions are yours, but staying a bit less emotional in your writing is usually more productive.

I don’t think that’s true of what I wrote in Sketchy and maybe crazy alternative to PEP 722.

Packaging is too complex → This will make it more complex, not for those who will always stick with this solution, but overall, and for those who have to understand both systems.
Best practice is unclear → This adds a new practice, making “best practice” less clear.
There are too many options → There will be one more option.

So it’s not clear to me how you immediately jump to the conclusion that the criticism towards this proposal is absurd.

Yes, from the point of view of someone who will never write anything but quick single-file scripts (which is a lot of people), this will simplify things, though at the cost of introducing yet another option (in any event, it will take a lot of time before all topmost Google search hits for queries like “run Python script with dependencies” point to resources with the new method, and in the meantime there will be some confusion, inevitably).

For those who are both writing quick scripts and more significant projects (which is also a lot of people), this will increase the packaging fragmentation, which everybody agrees is confusing.

That’s why I think it is worth reflecting on how to make single-file scripts at the same time convenient and similar to what already exists.

1 Like