That's a pretty big claim. I don't doubt that a lot of uv's benefits are algo. But everything? Considering that running non IO-bound native code should be an order of magnitude faster than python.

▲

jeremyjh 2 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Its a pretty well-supported claim. uv skips doing a number of things that generate file I/O. File I/O is far more costly than the difference in raw computation. pip can't drop those for compatibility reasons.

https://nesbitt.io/2025/12/26/how-uv-got-so-fast.html

▲

rowanG077 2 hours ago | parent [-]

I don't think the article you linked supports the claim that none of UV performance improvements are related to using rust over python at all. In fact it directly states the exact opposite. They have an entire section dedicated to why using Rust has direct performance advantages for UV.

▲

jeremyjh 18 minutes ago | parent [-]

What it says is this:

> uv is fast because of what it doesn’t do, not because of what language it’s written in. The standards work of PEP 518, 517, 621, and 658 made fast package management possible. Dropping eggs, pip.conf, and permissive parsing made it achievable. Rust makes it a bit faster still.

	▲	rowanG077 9 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		That quote directly disproves that all of the improvements UV have over competitors is because of algos, not because of rust. So the claim is not well supported at all by the article as you stated, in fact the claim is literally disproven by the article.

▲

thfuran 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

More than one, I'd think.