alt Hacker NewsWherever you fall on that debate (I have my opinions but they are not strongly held), a bigger red flag here for me is the `pip install ...` opener. The fact they later have a `uvx ...` example in the docs just makes defaulting to pip even worse.
As that comment mentions:
> 5 years ago [...] Python packaging was a big mess.
> Today [...] I think Python's packaging story has never been stronger.
Poetry, & later Uv, are essential & invaluable milestones in that revolutionary story; Pip is terrible software & should be left in the past.
> Poetry, & later Uv, are essential & invaluable milestones in that revolutionary story; Pip is terrible software & should be left in the past.
The comparison to other programs is missing the point of why pip is terrible. For that matter, last I checked Poetry relied on either vendored pip or something very much like it to do the actual package installation.
If you like workflows dictated by all-in-one tools, go for it. Don't force it on me. Some of us still see great value in the Unix philosophy.
The real problem is that pip doesn't even do a good job of its "one thing" (the actual package installation). It barely understands caching, has insecure and confusing default behaviours stemming from nigh-unfixable legacy issues, doesn't know how to inspect the installation environment properly (therefore relying on ugly hacks to install cross-environment at all), vendors a bunch of stuff it barely uses and often doesn't really need, and is overall horribly architected.