Why use pip over easy_install? [closed]

Question

A tweet reads:

Don't use easy_install, unless you like stabbing yourself in the face. Use pip.

Why use pip over easy_install? Doesn't the fault lie with PyPI and package authors mostly? If an author uploads crap source tarball (eg: missing files, no setup.py) to PyPI, then both pip and easy_install will fail. Other than cosmetic differences, why do Python people (like in the above tweet) seem to strongly favor pip over easy_install?

(Let's assume that we're talking about easy_install from the Distribute package, that is maintained by the community)

Answer 1

From Ian Bicking's own introduction to pip:

pip was originally written to improve on easy_install in the following ways

• All packages are downloaded before installation. Partially-completed installation doesn’t occur as a result.
• Care is taken to present useful output on the console.
• The reasons for actions are kept track of. For instance, if a package is being installed, pip keeps track of why that package was required.
• Error messages should be useful.
• The code is relatively concise and cohesive, making it easier to use programmatically.
• Packages don’t have to be installed as egg archives, they can be installed flat (while keeping the egg metadata).
• Native support for other version control systems (Git, Mercurial and Bazaar)
• Uninstallation of packages.
• Simple to define fixed sets of requirements and reliably reproduce a set of packages.