←back to thread

365 points tanelpoder | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0.217s | source
Show context
rcarmo ◴[] No.44978004[source]
This feels like feature creep. I've been using uv more and more over the past year (mostly because I work with projects that use it) and although I like it and recognize the advantages, it is still not my first choice, and this kind of thing isn't going to help that...
replies(3): >>44978366 #>>44978369 #>>44980655 #
asa400 ◴[] No.44980655[source]
What's wrong with this approach specifically? Go does it this way. Rust does it this way. Elixir does it this way. It reduces the toil in setting up and using projects in those ecosystems substantially. It unifies community effort behind a common set of tools and provides beginners and experts alike with a shared entrypoint to projects.
replies(2): >>44980918 #>>44980925 #
RossBencina ◴[] No.44980918[source]
What's wrong with the approach is that it goes against basic principles of the Python ecosystem. Python has always followed the policy of standardising mechanisms and allowing implementations to develop and peacefully coexist. The Python way fosters diversity of implementations. Note that uv itself would not be a reasonable project if not for Python's approach to diverse tooling.

You cite good examples where other languages have chosen to standardise tooling. We can discuss the pros and cons of that choice. But it is a choice, and Python already made a different choice.

replies(7): >>44981100 #>>44983473 #>>44983480 #>>44983629 #>>44985010 #>>44986943 #>>44988425 #
1. wiseowise ◴[] No.44986943[source]
You’re free to build your own Rube Goldberg machine, some of us just want to use well crafted tools and be done with it.