531–540 of 951 posts
Welp. I used to respect Astral. I hope someone responsible forks their Python tooling and maintains it. Ideally a foundation rather than a company.
Yeah, well, the fact is that every person who ever touches Python needed uv, but only Astral folks created it. So, nope, there's no one capable of filling the void, just accept that it's fucked now. The best die first.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Just a tiny project with over 100 million downloads every month, over 4 million every day. No big deal. Just a small shop, don't overstate its importance. https://pypistats.org/packages/uv
Sure, but if tomorrow uv and ruff ceased to exist, we could all go back to any number of other solutions.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not sure I follow - is the car the coding agent, and the developer the driver? Agree with OP here, if AI coding tools are as intelligent and amazing as AI influencers and CEOs are saying, just prompt them to "Remake UV but faster & better".
Car is the coding agent. Developer is the driver. > Agree with OP here, if AI coding tools are as intelligent and amazing as AI influencers and CEOs are saying, just prompt them to "Remake UV but faster & better". If average dev is more intelligent and amazing than any coding model, just hire a team of average devs and “remake UV but faster & better”.
A concern: More and more plainly, OpenAI and Anthropic are making plays to own (and lease) the "means of production" in software. OK - I'm a pretty happy renter right now. As they gobble up previously open software stacks, how viable is it that these stacks remain open? It seems perfectly sensible to me that these providers and their users alike have an interest in further centralizing the dev lifecycle - eg, if Clau…
[flagged]
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Their attention apears to already be quite diffuse if buying a python package manager is an item anywhere on their agenda. Also, once again, if the tool did what it was promised -- it wouldn't even be a diffusion of attention. The entire schtick is that software engineers are being replaced and that you can just run a model to create the product for you. Unless, of course, the thing does not do what is promised.
> Their attention apears to already be quite diffuse if buying a python package manager is an item anywhere on their agenda. According to the blog [0], their whole monorepo is in Python, their models are obviously trained using Python, their experiments are written using Python and core and CLI of their Codex is written using Rust. Uv brings both Python and Rust expertise. You’re talking nonsense because of your blin…
Obviously, buying skilled Rust devs makes sense for any normal software company that develops in Rust. I wouldn't be making a point out of it if the headline were "Amazon buys Rust developers". Or if OpenAI were honest about what their product is.
I don't care how good/bad a company is, because I lived long enough to know that most of them started off like that. Good luck to the uv team.
A concern: More and more plainly, OpenAI and Anthropic are making plays to own (and lease) the "means of production" in software. OK - I'm a pretty happy renter right now. As they gobble up previously open software stacks, how viable is it that these stacks remain open? It seems perfectly sensible to me that these providers and their users alike have an interest in further centralizing the dev lifecycle - eg, if Clau…
> uvex add other_slop_project —-disable_peddled_package_recommendations
> implicitly phoning home your project, all source code, its metadata, and inferring whether your idea/use-case is worth steamrolling with their own version.
This is the future of “development”. Congrats to the team.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I remember a somewhat prominent dev in the DC area putting on Twitter around 2012 or so something like "I do plenty of open source coding and I don't put a fucking license on it" and it stuck with me for all these years that it was a weird stance to take.
Dan Bernstein took that attitude back in the 90s - I think his personal theory of copyright went something like "if it doesn't have a license, then it's obviously public domain", which ran counter to the mainstream position of "if it doesn't have a license, then you have to treat it as proprietary". And, sure, djb wasn't actually likely to sue you if you went ahead and distributed modified versions of his software...…
I mean philosophically and morally, sure, one can take that position ... but copyright law does not work like that, at least not for anything published in the US after 1989 [1].