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

161–170 of 401 posts

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

#161

Post by nchagnet »

epistasis wrote: post #138
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 m…

Add to that the licensing of conda. In my company, we are not allowed to use conda because the company would rather not pay, so might as well use some other tool which does things faster.

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

#162

Post by simonw »

tiltowait wrote: post #154

The challenge I have with adopting uv is it feels like it doesn't have a great replacement for poetry's `[tool.poetry.scripts]` block. For instance, from a personal project that uses a src layout, without being a package, I have this in my pyproject.toml: [tool.poetry] ... packages = [{ include = "*", from = "src", format = "sdist" }] ... [tool.poetry.scripts] botch = "launcher:run_bot('botch')" beat = "launcher:run_…

It looks like uv will get script support eventually: https://github.com/astral-sh/uv/issues/5903

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

#163

Post by shlomo_z »

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…

This is a nice feature, but I've not found it to be useful, because my IDE wont recognize these dependencies.

Or is it a skill issue?

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

#164

Post by droelf »

epistasis wrote: post #138
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 m…

We've been working on all the shortcomings in `pixi`: pixi.sh

It's very fast, comes with lockfiles and a project-based approach. Also comes with a `global` mode where you can install tools into sandboxed environments.

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

#165

Post by droelf »

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…

Thanks for bringing up conda. We're definitely trying to paint this vision as well with `pixi` (https://pixi.sh) - which is a modern package manager, written in Rust, but using the Conda ecosystem under the hood.

It follows more of a project based approach, comes with lockfiles and a lightweight task system. But we're building it up for much bigger tasks as well (`pixi build` will be a bit like Bazel for cross-platform, cross-language software building tasks).

While I agree that conda has many short-comings, the fundamental packages are alright and there is a huge community keeping the fully open source (conda-forge) distribution running nicely.

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

#166

Post by datadeft »

Now we should just figure out why to stop here. Why not write everything in Rust? Recently I have moved all my projects to Rust from Python and never looked back. Of course we need projects like Torch and we are not yet there, but those simpler projects that do not require GPU libraries Rust is great.

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

#168

Post by gyomu »

datadeft wrote: post #166

Now we should just figure out why to stop here. Why not write everything in Rust? Recently I have moved all my projects to Rust from Python and never looked back. Of course we need projects like Torch and we are not yet there, but those simpler projects that do not require GPU libraries Rust is great.

What’s a good flask (+jinja) equivalent for rust?

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

#169

Post by optionalsquid »

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…

Besides being much slower, and taking up much more space per environment, than uv, conda also has a nasty habit of causing unrelated things to break in weird ways. I've mostly stopped using it at this point, for that reason, tho I've still had to reach for it on occasion. Maybe pixi can replace those use cases. I really should give it a try.

There's also the issue the license for using the repos, which makes it risky to rely on conda/anaconda. See e.g. https://stackoverflow.com/a/74762864

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

#170

Post by aragilar »

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…

My feeling sadly is because uv is the new thing, it hasn't had to handle anything but the common cases. This kinda gets a mention in the article, but is very much glossed over. There are still some sharp edges, and assumptions which aren't true in general (but are for the easy cases), and this only going to make things worse, because now there's a new set of issues people run into.
Post reply on HN