Pradyun Gedam

he/him. Probably trying to make refined sand do something useful.

Wearer of many hats in OSS spaces: CPython, pip, packaging, TOML, Furo, Sphinx extensions, Executable Books and more.

GitHub: https://github.com/pradyunsg
Website: https://pradyunsg.me

Last Notes

2025-06-24 22:38:38 UTC

*me* Playing around with computers, trying to make some pretty colors happen.
*me, later* I want 18 colors for this, and that's a 54 dimension optimization problem. Oooh, this will be a fun weekend project!
*me, much later* This is proving surprisingly difficult, but it's an interesting problem to think through.
*me, much much later* Yea, this is literally weighted constraint satisfaction... which is NP-hard.

2024-12-11 14:01:56 UTC

OH: *talking about version numbers*
Me: v1!2-alpha_3.r-2_dev-99999+whatever.it-takes_to.do.this is a valid version number.

2024-10-25 18:07:52 UTC

- reply

I forget who it was, so I can't credit this appropriately the person who told me once that more than half of what people call Python packaging problems are actually Python bootstrapping problems.
And, like, I paused because the answer wasn't an obvious no.

2024-09-16 20:40:18 UTC

- reply

> UV python uses python.org/downloads
Wait, no -- it does not. It uses python-build-standalone.

2024-09-09 19:23:16 UTC

@npub1zgm…dan3 Do you have automation for cross posting across different micro-blogging platforms?

2024-09-08 10:34:43 UTC

- reply

Yea, single executable distribution is *great*.
Rust's achilles heel seems to be that it's using dependecies as additional source code, which leads to long compile times (coz you gotta compile all your dependencies + variants that come off of that in your code) as well as causing complications when using the build systems that expect a "source code -> reusable binary" relationship for each individual piece in that system (eg: the kind that Debian/Fedora have).

2024-09-08 08:13:54 UTC

- reply

I find it easiest to describe this as "there is an executable that runs the code" vs "the code directly run on the underlying 'hardware'".
Standard caveats apply around "it's a property of the implementation", room for arguing about "code"/"run", and "There can be more software been the executable and the physical CPU", etc. :)

2024-08-20 20:04:41 UTC

- reply

FWIW, they're not saying we can't do it. They're saying we're choosing not to do it in this case.
It feels like they want to pull this in other cases when as many people are not looking and they're not being scrutinised.