5 comments

  • Philip-J-Fry25 minutes ago
    Why wouldn't I just `go install` from the git repo? Why is it worth encouraging the use of python tooling for generic application distribution when things like homebrew or chocolatey already exist?
    • bbg240113 minutes ago
      From what I recall, Simon believes non-technical people or developers new to an ecosystem (or lacking a specific toolchain) should be given options to use existing language-specific package repositories and package management tools to reduce friction while engaging in agentic coding.<p>I can see the rationale but I can&#x27;t help thinking it&#x27;s utterly absurd.
      • WhyNotHugo8 minutes ago
        What kind of &quot;non-technical&quot; person is fine with using &quot;pip install …&quot;, but not &quot;go install …&quot;?
  • mistic928 minutes ago
    Why should I use python when I can just use Go? Like why
  • mbreese50 minutes ago
    See here [1] for more information on the rationale behind this.<p>[1] <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;simonwillison.net&#x2F;2026&#x2F;Feb&#x2F;4&#x2F;distributing-go-binaries&#x2F;" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;simonwillison.net&#x2F;2026&#x2F;Feb&#x2F;4&#x2F;distributing-go-binarie...</a>
  • the__alchemist41 minutes ago
    This is still surprising! There are similar tools for rust, and presumably it works for arbitrary binaries. Can be a convenient installation approach if you expect your user base to use python. E.g. for distributing tools written in Go, Rust, C, etc that aid Python development. To the user, it&#x27;s a standard `pip install x`, but x is not a python script.
  • sunshine-o50 minutes ago
    Read too fast, I was really hoping for a way to get a python app in a binary like in Go.
    • the__alchemist43 minutes ago
      Hah; turns out this is precisely the opposite!
      • pkaye11 minutes ago
        Python subsystem for Go