[lmm]

> exceedingly unlikely to because your user-wide tools should be few.

Why "should"? I think it's the other way around - Python culture has shied away from user-wide tools because it's known that they cause problems if you have more than a handful of them, and so e.g. Python profilers remain very underdeveloped.

[mixmastamyk]

There are simply few, I don't shy away from them. Other than tools replaced by ruff, httpie, twine, ptpython, yt-dlp, and my own tools I don't need anything else. Most "user" tools are provided by the system package manager.

All the other project-specific things go in venvs where they belong.

This is all a non-issue despite constant "end of the world" folks who never learned sysadmin and are terrified of an error.

If a libraries conflict, uninstall them, and put them in a venv. Why do all the work up front? I haven't had to do that in so long I forget how long it was. Early this century.

[lmm]

> This is all a non-issue despite constant "end of the world" folks who never learned sysadmin and are terrified of an error.

It's not a non-issue. Yes it's not a showstopper, but it's a niggling drag on productivity. As someone who's used to the JVM but currently having to work in Python, everything to do with package management is just harder and more awkward than it needs to be (and every so often you just get stuck and have to rebuild a venv or what have you) and the quality of tooling is significantly worse as a result. And uv looks like the first of the zillions of Python package management tools to actually do the obvious correct thing and not just keep shooting yourself in the foot.

[mixmastamyk]

It’s not a drag if you ignore it and it doesn’t happen even once a decade.

Still I’m looking forward to uv because I’ve lost faith in pypa. They break things on purpose and then say they have no resources to fix it. Well they had the resources to break it.

But this doesn’t have much to do with installing tools into ~/.local.