Why does this causes the package number to never be shown?

As far as I understood, if you are not using package.el, the number of packages will not be shown. But if you are using package.el it should show the number

That's odd, even if my package-enable-at-startup is t, my packages are not displayed. Are your packages being displayed?

I'll check it later again. Maybe we missed something

I seem to remember it worked just fine when I tried it.
Sorry about this guys.

It's possible I may have misunderstood how package-enable-at-startup is treated.
From the docstring of package-initialize in package.el for Emacs 26.2:

If `user-init-file' does not mention `(package-initialize)', add
it to the file.
If called as part of loading `user-init-file', set
`package-enable-at-startup' to nil, to prevent accidentally
loading packages twice.
It is not necessary to adjust `load-path' or `require' the
individual packages after calling `package-initialize' -- this is
taken care of by `package-initialize'."

I find this a little confusing, but it seems like package-enable-at-startup is set to nil if you call (package-initialize) from your init.el.

In any case, it seems my fix is simply wrong.

A quick workaround would be to simply perform the bound-check on package-activated-list, but I thought that felt a little more hacky.

@raxod502 Sorry for bothering you about this, but do you know of a reliable way to determine if someone is using the regular package.el or if they are using an alternative like your straight.el?

Possible fix here: #147

It's possible I may have misunderstood how package-enable-at-startup is treated.
From the docstring of package-initialize in package.el for Emacs 26.2:

If `user-init-file' does not mention `(package-initialize)', add
it to the file.
If called as part of loading `user-init-file', set
`package-enable-at-startup' to nil, to prevent accidentally
loading packages twice.
It is not necessary to adjust `load-path' or `require' the
individual packages after calling `package-initialize' -- this is
taken care of by `package-initialize'."

I find this a little confusing, but it seems like package-enable-at-startup is set to nil if you call (package-initialize) from your init.el.

In any case, it seems my fix is simply wrong.

A quick workaround would be to simply perform the bound-check on package-activated-list, but I thought that felt a little more hacky.

@raxod502 Sorry for bothering you about this, but do you know of a reliable way to determine if someone is using the regular package.el or if they are using an alternative like your straight.el?

Relax brother, you just addressed a problem you were having and tried to fix it! Nothing wrong about that! It's cool, we'll find a solution! That's the fun thing about contributing, if you get it wrong there's nothing to worry about, there will likely be people that are willing to help you! 😄