@simon 100% what Hynek said. One of the most painful things about Python development, for me, is how fragile the packaging stuff is and how little regard for backward compatibility there is in the leading tools. It isn't that it's bad or that it's unreasonably slow, it's that it's an element of chaos. I never know when an update will break my CI builds, so I have to lock to a specific set of versions. And, somehow every packaging related thing in Python is fragile like that.

@simon great thread and summation, thank you!

Here’s that full discussion, very worth reading the whole thing https://social.jacobian.org/@jacob/113091418140504394

@simon a wonderful summary, thanks for writing this up for folks who aren’t as engaged on this platform!

@simon been reading the thread with interest, but I find some "stances against uv" a little bit too harsh. I understand and respect the concerns, of course.

(Though I don't get the whole "but it's written in Rust" thing: the scientific ecosystem is full of C/C++/Cython, a bit of Fortran and I don't even know what else. I guess that makes it comparatively more maintainable, lol.)

@simon Thanks for pointing this out. The complete mess of Python packaging has been the worst, most embarrassing aspect of Python to me. Those more expert than me seem less bothered, but trying to explain to newbies how to choose which collection of tools to use just to start writing code has been ridiculous. I just want one good tool.

I'm usually very, very against anything VC-funded but I love what's happening with uv and I really hope it succeeds in a way that keeps people happy.

@simon thanks for the summary, I think it was a good discussion.