But the meson installation has many dependencies, it is not very lightweight, it needs python, ninja, and xmake has built-in luajit, no third-party dependencies, more lightweight
The requirements say Python 3.5 or newer. That was released in 2015. Outside of major versions, Python has generally been forwards compatible (especially if you're testing). After more than a decade of use, the only grumbles with supporting old Python version is not getting to use new features (or working around fixed bugs).
I say this as someone who still uses Python 2 every day.
I'm glad we seem to be past the big inflection point and hope to put Python 2 behind us. But I can see never changing `python` from Python 2 (just not have one when Python 2 isn't installed).
To the point of the comment thread, that would only be an issue if you're maintaining a Python 2 codebase and using modern Arch. If you're creating a Python 3 codebase you're likely calling `python3` and even calling `python` isn't a problem for you.
If that really bothers you then just create a virtual environment and locally deploy whatever version you want to run. That issue ceased to be a concern years ago.
Yaw super lightweight ...
I think the pressure to always be on the latest and greatest is what did for the ruby and perl communities, and this is why python, and to a certain extent javascript are still going strong!
But to be fair, I usually just clone a Virtualbox machine because I'm used to the workflow. :)
I haven't used virtualenv very much, but I've been doing similar things for longer than virtualenv has been around. You need a `python` binary on PATH and a PYTHONPATH pointing to where you want to get your libraries from. virtualenv packages this up into a directory in a more user friendly fashion.
Most docs I've seen on Python2/3 advise on choosing one or the other, ideally 3. Which implies mixing should either be done very carefully or with a plan to transition to 3.
I get that some accidents of history have caused headaches. The deep adoption by distros have caused problems when people just want to use Python/libs installed with the OS (as well as moving to Python 3), authoring packages hasn't been great historically, etc.
I don't mean to be rude, but the key to getting people's attention is to get your point across quickly. As soon as somebody starts going all you have to do is install a frobozz and murtle a plinth I really just lose interest.
EDIT - doubting myself I went back up the thread here and this topic kicks off with "meson installation has many dependencies, it is not very lightweight" ("lightweight" operationally defined here for this discussion) - to which somebody replies "it doesn't matter, Ninja includes Python" or words to that effect. "it's not the correct version of Python" is the general gist of what comes next to which our GGP here says "all you have to do" is set up a python virtual environment, which is around the point where I start to feel frustrated and the need to go do something interesting.
So to be clear, the discussion is not about python being lightweight, but meson, and trying to wave complexity away with yet another layer of complexity (even if it's something as well known as python virtualenvs) is not reducing complexity but hiding it, IMO.
I agree long wandering threads are difficult to follow.
I have little interest in new C++ build systems, but will jump in and contribute when I see a familiar problem I want to learn more about like managing sizable Python codebases. Python 2/3 isn't relevant at all to meson and I don't see the docs mentioning any need for version or package management. I've only ever heard/seen virtualenv needed in project management, never in distributed software. Is your beef with Python or any software using an interpreted language? Outside of the 2to3 transition and being deeply integrated in many distros, it has the fundamental problems other interpreted languages have and are handled in the same way.
export PIP_REQUIRE_VIRTUALENV=true
If they promise to never break backward compatibility again in the future i might change my stance though, i mostly try to avoid Python than anything than a simple calculator or quick and dirty scripts because i do not want to write any code that may break in 2-3 years without me doing anything wrong.
Guido said there would never be a Python 4, though he has handed over the reigns so who knows.
As a Python dev, I wouldn't mind a Python 4 if it fixed some of the older / crustier corners of the API.
ninja isn't installed on macOS and Windows, and both systems require to first install a package manager before installing ninja, or compile ninja from scratch.