All of our tools can be used independently and in coexistence with other tools. You can use `uv` with other build backends; you can use `virtualenv` to create your virtual environments, and `uv pip` to install into them; you can use `ruff` as a linter and `black` as a formatter, or `ruff` for both, or whatever. Here, similarly, you can use `uv` with `ruff`, or bring your own formatter. It's intentional for us that you can use the pieces that you want, and interoperate with other tools. But it's also intentional that we want using our tools _together_ to be a great experience. I think we can achieve both of these things. Or, at least, we're going to try.

I’m not sure I agree with this. If anything, a diversity of implementations coexisting is against the basic principles of Python.

> There should be one-- and preferably only one --obvious way to do it.

- PEP20 - The Zen of Python

uv exists because Python's default packaging situation is a mess. There was supposed to be one way to do it, pip, but then it became pip + venv because it's too unreliable otherwise, but that's still bad.

You’re free to build your own Rube Goldberg machine, some of us just want to use well crafted tools and be done with it.

what if somebody happens to not like the Basic Principles of the Python Ecosystem? most languages do quite well with a single package manager, it's getting harder to argue that Python's need to introduce a new one every year is actually a good thing

But astral is a startup, they don't really want to coexist I guess.

"The basic principles of the Python ecosystem" are a dumpster fire to anyone who isn't already desensitized to the situation. Just like 'uv' as a whole, this seems like a meaningful step towards making Python a little less terrible to actually use, and should be applauded.