zlacker

[parent] [thread] 3 comments
1. andrew+(OP)[view] [source] 2025-12-02 18:31:09
Honestly, given the constant rollercoaster of version management and building tools for Python the move to something else would be expected rather than surprising.

I’ve seems like a great tool, but I remember thinking the same about piping, too.

replies(2): >>baq+Ue >>andrew+7o2
2. baq+Ue[view] [source] 2025-12-02 19:29:56
>>andrew+(OP)
uv is a revolution in every possible positive sense of the word in the Python world and I've been here since 1.5. it is imperative that bitter oldtimers like us try it, I did and the only regret I've got is that I didn't do it sooner.
replies(1): >>zelphi+Pi1
◧◩
3. zelphi+Pi1[view] [source] [discussion] 2025-12-03 02:36:42
>>baq+Ue
I also tried it and am now using it for new projects. But I was just fine with Poetry too. Yes, uv is faster and probably better code. But my use-cases didn't necessitate to re-create the venvs frequently, so the slowness of Poetry didn't matter that much to me, and I am not using the "one-off script" kind of approaches that uv enables (writing the dependencies in a comment in the script itself).

So, yeah, uv is nice, but for me didn't fundamentally change that much.

4. andrew+7o2[view] [source] 2025-12-03 12:39:21
>>andrew+(OP)
Autocorrect messed up my last line, should say:

uv seems like a great tool, but I remember thinking the same about pipenv, too.

[go to top]