Admittedly, most of what I use `uv` for now is to install PDM, as the uv installation script is much more reliable than PDM's. If PDM had an equivalent to `uv tool install`, I could leave `uv` without looking back.

Replacing `ruff` is harder, and replacing `ty` is almost impossible.

The main reason I was fine using uv was that it did a very good job of following the PEPs when they existed, and giving clear, transparent reasons for not doing so when they made exceptions (like why they didn't adopt pylock.toml).

Other than PDM, though, there's just so little in the way of Python package management tooling that does a good job of bootstrapping and for declaratively managing venvs.

I've said it before, but I'm not happy having `python` on PATH. That's an easy way to have global system state leak into project dependencies. Not having `python` on PATH let me discover where a chain of different build tools escaped the venv and picked up system-wide site-packages.

uv got that right, imho.

God *damn* I'm depressed right now.

@demize @xgranade :c rude

what did python do to you

@kouhai @xgranade hey, I like python

as long as it’s shoved into the nice neat little boxes each called “.venv”

@xgranade @demize this is what I do for server things!

but, I want my user-site-packages…