[matsemann]

It's not the "runtime" that's slow for me with pip, but all the steps needed. My biggest gripe with python is you need to basically be an expert in different tools to get a random project running. Uv solves this. Just uv run the script and it works.

I don't care if pip technically can do something. The fact that I explicitly have to mess around with venvs and the stuff is already enough mental overhead that I disregard it.

I'm a python programmer at my job, and I've hated the tooling for years. Uv is the first time I actually like working with python.

[zahlman]

None of GP is about what Pip can technically do. It's about what a better tool still written in Python could do.

The problems you're describing, or seeing solved with uv, don't seem to be about a problem with the design of virtual environments. (Uv still uses them.) They're about not having the paradigm of making a venv transiently, as part of the code invocation; or they're about not having a built-in automation of a common sequence of steps. But you can do that just as well with a couple lines of Bash.

I'm not writing any of this to praise the standard tooling. I'm doing it because the criticisms I see most commonly are inaccurate. In particular, I'm doing it to push back against the idea that a non-Python language is required to make functional Python tooling. There isn't a good conceptual reason for that.

[regularfry]

It may not be required, but it has the virtue of existing. Now that it does, is it a problem that it's not written in Python? Especially given that they've chosen to take on managing the interpreter as well: being in a compiled language does mean that it doesn't have the bootstrap problem of needing an already functional Python installation that they need to avoid breaking.

[matsemann]

Why does it matter if it's written in python or not? I want the best tooling, don't care how it's made.

[zahlman]

You are free to evaluate tooling by your own standards.

But it commonly comes across that people think it can't be written in Python if it's to have XYZ features, and by and large they're wrong, and I'm trying to point that out. In particular, people commonly seem to think that e.g. Pip needs to be in the same environment to work, and that's just not true. There's a system in place that defaults to copying Pip into every environment so that you can `python -m pip`, but this is wasteful and unnecessary. (Pip is designed to run under the install environment's Python, but this is a hacky implementation detail. It really just needs to know the destination paths and the target Python version.)

It also happens that I care about disk footprint quite a bit more than most people. Maybe because I still remember the computers I grew up with.