Thanks, yes, I use nox and github actions for automated environments and testing in my own projects, and tox instead of nox when it’s someone else’s project. But for ad hoc, local and interactive multiple environments, I don’t.

If it didn’t bring something more to the table, besides speed, no one would care

I’m literally saying its speed in certain operations makes an appreciable difference in my workflows, especially when operating on tens of venvs at a time. I don’t know why you want to fight me on my own experience.

I’m not telling anyone who doesn’t want to use uv to do so. Someone asked about motivation, and I shared mine.

The convention

That’s one convention. I don’t like it, I prefer to keep my venvs elsewhere. One reason is that it makes it simpler to maintain multiple venvs for a single project, using a different Python version for each, if I ever want to. It shouldn’t matter to anyone else, as it’s my environment, not some aspect of the shared repo. If I ever needed it there for some reason, I could always ln -s $VIRTUAL_ENV .venv.

Learn pyenv

I have used pyenv. It’s fine. These days I use mise instead, which I prefer. But neither of them dictate how I create and store venvs.

Shell scripts within Python packages is depreciated

I don’t understand if what you’re referencing relates to my comment.

I have a pip-tools wrapper thing that now optionally uses uv instead. Aside from doing the pip-tools things faster, the main advantage I’ve found, and what really motivated me to support and recommend uv with it, is that uv creates new venvs MUCH faster than python’s venv module, which is really annoyingly slow for that operation.

I use my own Zsh project (zpy) to manage venvs stored like ~/.local/share/venvs/HASH-OF-PROJECT-PATH/venv, so use zpy’s vpy function to launch a script with its associated Python executable ad-hoc, or add a full path shebang to the script with zpy’s vpyshebang function.

vpy and vpyshebang in the docs

If anyone else is a Zsh fan and has any questions, I’m more than happy to answer or demo.

• Factor
• Roc
• Nim
• Zsh
• Execline

Well FWIW CodeWars has plenty of Factor katas, and I try to gather related resources at https://programming.dev/c/concatenative

I’m trying to keep up with the Perl Weekly Challenges, but with Factor, and am posting some Factor solutions to Exercism’s 48in24 series.

I just grabbed it. The dash cam features might possibly be useful on a bike (?). But I tried and tried and couldn’t find the magic zoom level for it to show me the name of the street I’m on, got frustrated, and uninstalled.

I’m not off Google Maps either, but the closest to replacing it for me is Organic Maps, FWIW.

Thanks, I have, but it’s not a replacement for me. I’ll try it again once a year though.

Some combination of things like performance, non distracting presentation, the minimap, multi cursor that works how I like, some plugins I like, no web browser, the way every open buffer is always safe and saved in some cache without necessarily saving to the edited file, the UX for split view across tabs, minimal fuss to get UI text and colors legible for my bad eyesight, etc.

Sublime Text, Google Photos, Google Maps (partially)

Two books that may be helpful:

• Fluent Python by Luciano Ramalho
• Python Distilled by David M. Beazley

I’m more familiar with the former, and think it’s very good, but it may not give you the basic introduction to object oriented programming (classes and all that) you’re looking for; the latter should.

Thanks. I know that’s the case for Nim’s flexibility, but I didn’t think it applied to the pipe operator stuff like in Roc. I’ll do some reading tonight to confirm.

That’s true, but if the transformations have more than one argument, they go after the name

Yup, I understand. That’s why I’ve not put them in the concatenative section.

Also, there are more languages with this feature, for example D, VimScript or Koka.

Thanks, maybe I’ll add them to the sidebar! I hadn’t heard of Koka.

If you have a suggested heading/description to replace “partially concatenative” I’m interested. Function chaining? And I’m not sure but maybe execline is actually concatenative and needs to be moved out of that section.

Exactly. That’s the second link under “Wikipedia Topics” in the sidebar.

I may be expressing it poorly and inaccurately, but what I mean is that in Nim you can re-order arguments and functions to start with some data followed by a series of transformations. The following two lines are equivalent:

parse_int(read_line(stdin))
stdin.read_line().parse_int()

Roc offers a similar flow with their |> operator. Here’s a snippet from one of my Advent of Code 2022 solutions:

partOne =
    "input.txt"
    |> getData
    |> Task.await \data ->
        data
        |> getRangePairs
        |> List.keepIf pairHasStrictSubset
        |> List.len
        |> Num.toStr
        |> Stdout.line

Factor!

It’s incredible and elegant and defies some common categorization.

I’ve put some of my favorite resources in the sidebar of https://programming.dev/c/concatenative and I’m happy to walk through any particular challenges/examples – I’ve done about the first week of Advent of Code with it this year, and the most recent handful of Perl Weekly Challenges, and some basic Euler problems.

Any thoughts on the alternative I mentioned, DYN, described here?

Approval voting simplifies things but also has limitations because it removes any weight/preference people may have.

Yes, but nowhere near the problems of IRV. If those particular limitations bother you, as I said:

If you want to take on a little complexity for some further improvement, use delegable yes/no voting.

. . . don’t let the perfect be the enemy of the good.

I see zero “good” in IRV, for all the reasons outlined in the rant. Its failures are absurd and beyond unacceptable given that there are strictly better and simpler alternatives. Don’t let something shiny and terrible stop you from using something actually quite good.