> I breathe a sigh of relief in language like Go and Rust with an “authoritative” built-in solution.
I don't know about Go, but Rust's packaging isn't authoritative in the sense that I meant. There's no packaging BDFL; improvements to Rust packaging happen through a standards process that closely mirrors that of Python's PEPs.
I think the actual difference between Rust and Python is that Rust made the (IMO correct) decision early on to build a single tool for package management, whereas Python has historically had a single installer and left every other part of package management up to the user. That's a product of the fact that Python is more of a patchwork ecosystem and community than Rust is, plus the fact that it's a lot older and a lot bigger (in terms of breadth of user installation base).
Basically, hindsight is 20/20. Rust rightly benefited from Python's hard lesson about not having one tool, but they also rightly benefited from Python's good experience with consensus-driven standardization.
Was not setuptools the single tool for package management? It provided both the installer plus hooks to define packages and manage the install (plus eggs to try to manage the path). That doesn't mean the choices were the right ones (the package definition being the only thing to survive), but it seems that while cargo has the mindshare for pure-rust, when there's the need for integration with other ecosystems (as is the biggest challenge for Python), people need to switch to using meson or bazel and there appears to be some issues there.
Kind of, except that setuptools was never part of the standard library or standard distribution of Python. So it suffers/suffered from the same bootstrapping issue as the rest of Python packaging.
I don't know about Go, but Rust's packaging isn't authoritative in the sense that I meant. There's no packaging BDFL; improvements to Rust packaging happen through a standards process that closely mirrors that of Python's PEPs.
I think the actual difference between Rust and Python is that Rust made the (IMO correct) decision early on to build a single tool for package management, whereas Python has historically had a single installer and left every other part of package management up to the user. That's a product of the fact that Python is more of a patchwork ecosystem and community than Rust is, plus the fact that it's a lot older and a lot bigger (in terms of breadth of user installation base).
Basically, hindsight is 20/20. Rust rightly benefited from Python's hard lesson about not having one tool, but they also rightly benefited from Python's good experience with consensus-driven standardization.