I've been using pipenv for a good while but I've started to move over to venv slowly, and I like it so far. It's a bit more of manual work but I feel like it's worth it.

[–] stOneskull 2 points 2 years ago

i've moved to just using conda environments. i find it's a lighter load on my old brain.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 2 years ago

I love this workflow because it has only two prerequisites: python and pip. It works on windows, linux, any vm or container. Pipenv requires some setup, while this should work everywhere. In powershell you have to use ./.venv/bin/acticate.ps1 but that's the only difference.

[–] Mikina 1 points 2 years ago (1 children)

What did you not like on pipenv in comparison to venv? I was always avoiding venv because it was, as you said, manual work and it was too much effort to again google what was the order of commands and parameters to start a venv, which is not an issue in pipenv, since you just pipenv install what you need.

[–] oscar 1 points 2 years ago (1 children)

We had some issues in our CI where pipenv would sometimes fail to sync. It has recently gotten better, I think due to a fix of some race condition due to parallel installation. I think venv would be better suited for CI in general, since it allows the use of a simple requirements.txt file.

The other thing is I think it is rather slow, at least on windows which most of my team uses.

To conclude, I think as long as you aren't having any trouble and it simplifies your environment, you might as well use it.

[–] Mikina 1 points 2 years ago

I only use python as a go-to scripting language when I need to quickly automate something or write a quick throwaway script that requires an SDK, since there's a python library for almost anything and doing it in powershell would be too much aditional work. But it does make sense that for CI you only need to figure out the venv setup once and you're done, so it may be a better solution.