The author mentioned venv in the article. Also I believe the parent comment is talking about the difficulties of choosing between different dependencies management solutions, venv among them, rather than the lack of (a good) one
Why cause yourself difficulty by drifting towards optionality vs. using the ops suggestion and using venv?
This topic gets posted to HN far too often - I'm starting to think people are deliberately avoiding venv for some reason, because otherwise it's a perfectly capable system for package management.
Yes the article mentioned venv. And the parent said it's hard to choose. But the choice is easy: just use the basic built-in one. (Until you have a reason to use something else.)
It's a good general philosophy for software engineering: don't add stuff without good reason. There really is the potential to add infinite stuff these days - "awesome tools" and "best practices", without end. Individually they can help with particular problems you may have, but together they make a mess, and distract focus from the particular purpose of your software.
