Rye was already pretty good before it was donated to astral and renamed to uv though...

I wrote an earlier one (rust, inspired by Cargo, managed deps, scripts, and py versions) called PyFlow that I abandoned, because nobody used it. "Why should I use this when we have pip, pipenv, and poetry?"

Programming is 80% marketing, eh?

It probably doesn't help that there seem to be a few other projects out there with the same name or a similar name, which do completely different things.

They mostly took inspiration from other languages for UV. Cargo (Rust) was a huge inspiration, but they got stuff from Ruby as well, I believe. There was an episode on "the changelog" about it. Don't remember them saying anything about PEPs, although that might just be me not having listened to the entire thing. However, the Charlie Marsh was extremely insistent on the advantages of being a polyglot and hiring people with diverse programming experiences. So I think it's quite safe to assume that played a bigger role than just PEPs.

> Don't remember them saying anything about PEPs, although that might just be me not having listened to the entire thing. However, the Charlie Marsh was extremely insistent on the advantages of being a polyglot and hiring people with diverse programming experiences. So I think it's quite safe to assume that played a bigger role than just PEPs.

Not that they took inspiration from PEPs, but they sought to implement those standards (for interoperability) and have been active in the discussion of new packaging-related PEPs.

I can't speak for the UV team. My 2C on how I would treat the PEPs: If there is an accepted one, and implementing it doesn't go too strongly against your competing design goals, do it for compatibility. This does not imply that the PEP is driving your design, or required to make your software. It is a way to improve compatibility.

> dedicated funding can make a huge impact on a project

Where does Astral's funding come from, anyway?