This PEP proposed a __pypackages__ directory which would work similarly to the JS/NPM node_modules directory in the sense of being automatically on the import path whenever it exists in the local directory. The Python Steering Council has rejected the PEP.
Honestly I’m glad.
If virtualenv hadn’t existed for two decades already, pep582 would be a good idea. However, the entire existing community is already using stuff that uses venv, so the n+1 competing standards problem is a large risk.
venv doesn’t suck that bad. I think the community has a better chance of making it good by doing incremental cleanup than by switching away from it. An example of incremental cleanup is the patches for making
sudo pip install ...throw an error by default (because in most contexts it is a terrible idea and you almost always want to do something else like./.venv/bin/pip install ...).Every time a new thing introduces a schism in the community, a bunch of people will leave and probably not come back. Short term costs can create long term deficits.
This PEP was one of the reasons I was excited to maybe adopt PDM as it has support for this. An interesting question though: now that this PEP is officially rejected, will the author of PDM (not sure if he is a user here) be inclined to remove any support they did add initially?
This is a real pity. Hopefully the idea will come back in an adjusted form as it solves a real problem.
That proposal is neat, but I understand their rationale for rejection it. I’m not sure
node_modules/is the right example to follow, but I don’t have any better suggestions.The problem they’re trying to solve is very real. I’m tired of dealing with virtual environments so I’ve been trying to find a Python replacement for scripting purposes in my hobby projects.
deno is ahead, by a wide margin, of anything else I know in this niche, if the goal is to minimize general headaches.