Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

A year of uv: pros, cons, and should you migrate

bitecode.dev

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

131–140 of 401 posts

Re: A year of uv: pros, cons, and should you migrate

#131

Post by leni536 »

epistasis wrote: post #59
barosl wrote: post #43

A very well written article! I admire the analysis done by the author regarding the difficulties of Python packaging. With the advent of uv, I'm finally feeling like Python packaging is solved. As mentioned in the article, being able to have inline dependencies in a single-file Python script and running it naturally is just beautiful. #!/usr/bin/env -S uv run # /// script # dependencies = ['requests', 'beautifulsoup4…

One other key part of this is freezing a timestamp with your dependency list, because Python packages are absolutely terrible at maintaining compatibility a year or three or five later as PyPI populates with newer and newer versions. The special toml incantation is [tool.uv] exclude-newer: # /// script # dependencies = [ # "requests", # ] # [tool.uv] # exclude-newer = "2023-10-16T00:00:00Z" # /// https://docs.astral.…

That's fantastic, that's exactly what I need to revive a bit-rotten python project I am working with.

Re: A year of uv: pros, cons, and should you migrate

#132

Post by agent281 »

BrenBarn wrote: post #126

Like so many other articles that make some offhand remarks about conda, this article raves about a bunch of "new" features that conda has had for years. > Being independent from Python bootstrapping Yep, conda. > Being capable of installing and running Python in one unified congruent way across all situations and platforms. Yep, conda. > Having a very strong dependency resolver. Yep, conda (or mamba). The main thing…

> But it's weird to me to see these articles that are so excited about being able to install Python easily when that's been doable with conda for ages. (And conda has additional features not present in uv or other tools.)

I used conda for awhile around 2018. My environment became borked multiple times and I eventually gave up on it. After that, I never had issues with my environment becoming corrupted. I knew several other people who had the same issues and it stopped after they switched away from conda.

I've heard it's better now, but that experience burned me so I haven't kept up with it.

Re: A year of uv: pros, cons, and should you migrate

#133

Post by uneekname »

BrenBarn wrote: post #126

Like so many other articles that make some offhand remarks about conda, this article raves about a bunch of "new" features that conda has had for years. > Being independent from Python bootstrapping Yep, conda. > Being capable of installing and running Python in one unified congruent way across all situations and platforms. Yep, conda. > Having a very strong dependency resolver. Yep, conda (or mamba). The main thing…

Yes, conda has a lot more features on paper. And it supports non-Python dependencies which is super important in some contexts.

However, after using conda for over three years I can confidently say I don't like using it. I find it to be slow and annoying, often creating more problems than it solves. Mamba is markedly better but still manages to confuse itself.

uv just works, if your desktop environment is relatively modern. that's its biggest selling point, and why I'm hooked on it.

Re: A year of uv: pros, cons, and should you migrate

#134

Post by uneekname »

something98 wrote: post #37

Can someone explain a non-project based workflow/configuration for uv? I get creating a bespoke folder, repo, and uv venv for certain long-lived projects (like creating different apps?). But most of my work, since I adopted conda 7ish years ago, involves using the same ML environment across any number of folders or even throw-away notebooks on the desktop, for instance. I’ll create the environment and sometimes add n…

Why not just copy your last env into the next dir? If you need to change any of the package versions, or add something specific, you can do that without risking any breakages in your last project(s). From what I understand uv has a global package cache so the disk usage shouldn't be crazy.

Re: A year of uv: pros, cons, and should you migrate

#135

Post by dharmab »

BrenBarn wrote: post #121
something98 wrote: post #37

Can someone explain a non-project based workflow/configuration for uv? I get creating a bespoke folder, repo, and uv venv for certain long-lived projects (like creating different apps?). But most of my work, since I adopted conda 7ish years ago, involves using the same ML environment across any number of folders or even throw-away notebooks on the desktop, for instance. I’ll create the environment and sometimes add n…

Yeah, this is how I feel too. A lot of the movement in Python packaging seems to be more in managing projects than managing packages or even environments. I tend to not want to think about a "project" until very late in the game, after I've already written a bunch of code. I don't want "make a project" to be something I'm required or even encouraged to do at the outset.

I set up a "sandbox" project as an early step of setting up a new PC.

Sadly for certain types of projects like GIS, ML, scientific computing, the dependencies tend to be mutually incompatible and I've learned the hard way to set up new projects for each separate task when using those packages. `uv init; uv add ` is a small amount of work to avoid the headaches of Torch etc.

Re: A year of uv: pros, cons, and should you migrate

#136

Post by 0xCMP »

barosl wrote: post #43

A very well written article! I admire the analysis done by the author regarding the difficulties of Python packaging. With the advent of uv, I'm finally feeling like Python packaging is solved. As mentioned in the article, being able to have inline dependencies in a single-file Python script and running it naturally is just beautiful. #!/usr/bin/env -S uv run # /// script # dependencies = ['requests', 'beautifulsoup4…

I think this is an awesome feature and will probably a great alternative to my use of nix to do similar things for scripts/python if nothing else because it's way less overhead to get it running and playing with something.

Nix for all it's benefits here can be quite slow and make it otherwise pretty annoying to use as a shebang in my experience versus just writing a package/derivation to add to your shell environment (i.e. it's already fully "built" and wrapped. but also requires a lot more ceremony + "switching" either the OS or HM configs).

Re: A year of uv: pros, cons, and should you migrate

#137

Post by NewJazz »

thisgoodlife wrote: post #80
svachalek wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This works if you only have one python project on your system, but most python developers need virtual environments to deal with various projects.

I create a .venv directory for each project(even for those test projects named pytest, djangotest). And each project has its own requirements file. Personally, Python packaging has never been a problem.

uv basically does that + python version handling + conveniences like auto-activating venv and installing dependencies

Re: A year of uv: pros, cons, and should you migrate

#138

Post by epistasis »

BrenBarn wrote: post #126

Like so many other articles that make some offhand remarks about conda, this article raves about a bunch of "new" features that conda has had for years. > Being independent from Python bootstrapping Yep, conda. > Being capable of installing and running Python in one unified congruent way across all situations and platforms. Yep, conda. > Having a very strong dependency resolver. Yep, conda (or mamba). The main thing…

These are good points. But I think there needs to be an explanation why conda hasn't taken off more. Especially since it can handle other languages too. I've tried to get conda to work for me for more than a decade, at least once a year. What happens to me:

1) I can't solve for the tools I need and I don't know what to do. I try another tool, it works, I can move forward and don't go back to conda

2) it takes 20-60 minutes to solve, if it ever does. I quit and don't come back. I hear this doesn't happen anymore, but to this day I shudder before I hit enter on a conda install command

3) I spoil my base environment with an accidental install of something, and get annoyed and switch away.

On top of that the commands are opaque, unintuitive, and mysterious. Do I do conda env command or just conda command? Do I need a -n? The basics are difficult and at this point I'm too ashamed to ask which of the many many docs explain it, and I know I will forget within two months.

I have had zero of these problems with uv. If I screw up or it doesn't work it tells me right away. I don't need to wait for a couple minutes before pressing y to continue, I just get what I need in at most seconds, if my connection is slow.

If you're ina controlled environment and need audited packages, I would definitely put up with conda. But for open source, personal throw away projects, and anything that doesn't need a security clearance, I'm not going to deal with that beast.

Re: A year of uv: pros, cons, and should you migrate

#139

Post by bitvoid »

BrenBarn wrote: post #126

Like so many other articles that make some offhand remarks about conda, this article raves about a bunch of "new" features that conda has had for years. > Being independent from Python bootstrapping Yep, conda. > Being capable of installing and running Python in one unified congruent way across all situations and platforms. Yep, conda. > Having a very strong dependency resolver. Yep, conda (or mamba). The main thing…

> The main thing conda doesn't seem to have which uv has is all the "project management" stuff.

Pixi[1] is an alternative conda package manager (as in it still uses conda repositories; conda-forge by default) that bridges this gap. It even uses uv for PyPI packages if you can't find what you need in conda repositories.

1: https://pixi.sh

Re: A year of uv: pros, cons, and should you migrate

#140

Post by matsemann »

BrenBarn wrote: post #126

Like so many other articles that make some offhand remarks about conda, this article raves about a bunch of "new" features that conda has had for years. > Being independent from Python bootstrapping Yep, conda. > Being capable of installing and running Python in one unified congruent way across all situations and platforms. Yep, conda. > Having a very strong dependency resolver. Yep, conda (or mamba). The main thing…

Conda might have all these features, but it's kinda moot all the time no one can get them to work. My experience with conda is pulling a project, trying to install it, and it then spending hours trying to resolve dependencies. And any change would often break the whole environment.

uv "just works". Which is a feature in itself.

Post reply on HN