Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit
I dislike the idea of these separate tools being blended like this. ty is currently perfectly usable on non-uv projects. uv has *a lot* of opinionated quirks, its custom lockfile lockfile, and other nuances which many of us dislike — ty being a separate tool works fine with plain pip plus any other dependency manager (e.g.: pip-tools).

Of note though, ty doesn't NEED to be integrated into uv, nor vice-versa; keeping them as standalone tools seems most natural.

This shouldn't be surprising. Astral has wanted to create lock-in with uv for years and obviously they'll want to bring everyone into their "ecosystem" as much as possible. Stand by for more divergences from main python or use of their "market" capture for leverage over it.
A implies B does not mean B implies A too. You can use ty separately, this isn't stopping that, but it is useful for uv check to use ty together.
{"deleted":true,"id":50218137,"parent":50217461,"time":1792812739,"type":"comment"}
Projects that use ty for its type checking but something else than uv for managing dependencies are probably in a very tiny minority of users.
but there's probably lots of projects that use uv, but not ty.
loading story #50218439
Thank god it has opinionated quirks that old timers dislike.

Otherwise we'd still be stuck in the complete dumpster fire that was the python packaging/venv we had for the previous 20 years.

True, before UV the only way to package python was a container.
loading story #50218673
Old timer here: uv is not the first opinionated tool to manage Python packaging. It is build learning from other tools right and wrongs. I now use uv for everything because its quirks are less disruptive than quirks from previous tools that I also tried and disliked for being a bit too much for a very small gain.

What you call "dumpster fire", I call "steps towards uv", maybe even better tools in the future.