The astral team is definitely doing great work, and it's wonderful that these tools are permissively licensed, but what happens if astral doesn't work out as a business?
Uv 0.3 – Unified Python packaging
11–20 of 60 posts
Re: Uv 0.3 – Unified Python packaging
#12To me the Astral folks have a lot of credibility because both their ruff linter and formatter have been fantastic. Elevates this kind of announcement from yet another Python packaging thingy to something worth paying attention to. I like the idea of that single-file Python script with inline dependency info construct, but it's probably going to be a bummer in terms of editor experience. I doubt the typical LSP server…
Good thing we've been investing in our LSP server lately[1]! We're still a ways out from integrating uv into the LSP (and, more generally, providing auto-completions) but it's definitely on our minds.
The script dependency metadata _is_ standardized[2], so other LSP servers could support a good experience here (at least in theory).
[1] The Ruff Language Server: https://astral.sh/blog/ruff-v0.4.5
[2] Inline script metadata: https://peps.python.org/pep-0723/
Re: Uv 0.3 – Unified Python packaging
#13It's too bad that the blog post explicitly mentions rye but does not explain how the new features included in uv 0.3 will affect the role that rye will play going forward.
We wanted to cover this in a dedicated discussion. See https://github.com/astral-sh/rye/discussions/1342
Re: Uv 0.3 – Unified Python packaging
#14We changed the URL from https://github.com/astral-sh/uv/releases/tag/0.3.0 to the project page. Interested readers probably should look at both.
Re: Uv 0.3 – Unified Python packaging
#15I love the idea of Rye/uv/PyBi on managing the interpreter, but I get queasy that they are not official Python builds. Probably no issue, but it only takes one subtle bug to ruin my day.
Plus the supply chain potential attack. I know official Python releases are as good as I can expect of a free open source project. While the third party Python distribution is probably being built in Nebraska.
Re: Uv 0.3 – Unified Python packaging
#16Is there any reason to still use Rye, now? looks like this release adds all the things I would have missed from Rye, but I don't think I use all of Rye's features
I think uv hits everything that rye does, and with a solid implementation. With love, rye is all vision, philosophy and duct tape. uv is built by a full-time team.
Aren't they the same team?
Re: Uv 0.3 – Unified Python packaging
#17To me the Astral folks have a lot of credibility because both their ruff linter and formatter have been fantastic. Elevates this kind of announcement from yet another Python packaging thingy to something worth paying attention to. I like the idea of that single-file Python script with inline dependency info construct, but it's probably going to be a bummer in terms of editor experience. I doubt the typical LSP server…
Good thing we've been investing in our LSP server lately[1]! We're still a ways out from integrating uv into the LSP (and, more generally, providing auto-completions) but it's definitely on our minds. The script dependency metadata _is_ standardized[2], so other LSP servers could support a good experience here (at least in theory). [1] The Ruff Language Server: https://astral.sh/blog/ruff-v0.4.5 [2] Inline script met…
Do you intend to get to feature parity with pyright for ruff-lsp? I wasn't aware you were aiming to make it a full fledged lsp, despite using it daily.
Re: Uv 0.3 – Unified Python packaging
#18Re: Uv 0.3 – Unified Python packaging
#19What's the recommended/opinionated
Re: Uv 0.3 – Unified Python packaging
#20Does it support building native extensions and Cython modules or are setuptools still the only reasonable way to do this?