3 ms·

uv is owned by a startup. I would not depend on it because they will pull some weird monetisation scheme in a few years. Same with pydantic, that is now doing

by guappa 1y ago

uv is owned by a startup. I would not depend on it because they will pull some weird monetisation scheme in a few years. Same with pydantic, that is now doing AI.

Expurple 1y ago
Well, kinda. I haven't used uv, so I'm not sure how strong the dependency (and the lock-in) is. But it looks like just a QoL tool that reads the standard pyproject.toml, etc. So, it shouldn't be that bad. And if the authors do something weird, you can always stay on an older version, fork it, or switch back to some alternative.
- guappa 1y ago
  Considering how python is not very backwards compatibility friendly, that might not be an option.
  - Expurple 1y ago
    I think, this is only relevant for staying on an older version of uv? Which is only a temporary solution, in any ecosystem and in almost any situation. It's just "even more temporary" in Python :) If your old preferred alternative becomes unmaintained in the meantime and starts suffering from the same problems, that's basically equivalent to having to maintain a fork of uv. With the difference that it may be already out-of-date when the uv fork happens
IshKebab 1y ago
Yeah that's definitely a concern, but uv is SO much better than it would be totally mad to avoid it just for that reason. I would say it is also so much better that if Astral does go out of business or try to ruin it that a fork is almost inevitable. It reminds me of WhatsApp vs SMS. Sure, WhatsApp is owned by one company, but it's so much better than SMS that nobody sane stuck around using SMS. And sure Facebook have eventually started ruining it with the AI integration and apparently ads soon, but we've had over 10 years of an amazingly reliable, well-designed and free messaging platform. Easily worth it. If `uv` gives us something similar I don't care if they screw it up eventually.

3 ms·

uv is owned by a startup. I would not depend on it because they will pull some weird monetisation scheme in a few years. Same with pydantic, that is now doing

by guappa 1y ago

uv is owned by a startup. I would not depend on it because they will pull some weird monetisation scheme in a few years. Same with pydantic, that is now doing AI.

Expurple 1y ago
Well, kinda. I haven't used uv, so I'm not sure how strong the dependency (and the lock-in) is. But it looks like just a QoL tool that reads the standard pyproject.toml, etc. So, it shouldn't be that bad. And if the authors do something weird, you can always stay on an older version, fork it, or switch back to some alternative.
- guappa 1y ago
  Considering how python is not very backwards compatibility friendly, that might not be an option.
  - Expurple 1y ago
    I think, this is only relevant for staying on an older version of uv? Which is only a temporary solution, in any ecosystem and in almost any situation. It's just "even more temporary" in Python :) If your old preferred alternative becomes unmaintained in the meantime and starts suffering from the same problems, that's basically equivalent to having to maintain a fork of uv. With the difference that it may be already out-of-date when the uv fork happens
IshKebab 1y ago
Yeah that's definitely a concern, but uv is SO much better than it would be totally mad to avoid it just for that reason. I would say it is also so much better that if Astral does go out of business or try to ruin it that a fork is almost inevitable. It reminds me of WhatsApp vs SMS. Sure, WhatsApp is owned by one company, but it's so much better than SMS that nobody sane stuck around using SMS. And sure Facebook have eventually started ruining it with the AI integration and apparently ads soon, but we've had over 10 years of an amazingly reliable, well-designed and free messaging platform. Easily worth it. If `uv` gives us something similar I don't care if they screw it up eventually.