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.
> uv is fast because of what it doesn’t do, not because of what language it’s written in.
The fact that the language had a small effect ("a bit") does not invalidate the statement that algorithmic improvements are the reason for the relative speed. In fact, there's no reason to believe that rust without the algorithmic version would be notably faster at all. Sure, "all" is an exaggeration, but the point made still stands in the form that most readers would understand it: algorithmic improvements are the important difference between the systems.
So this:
> The statement that algorithmic improvements are the reason for the relative speed.
Was not at all the statement that I was attacking. For one because I don't disagree with that statement. I even point to this in my very first comment:
> I don't doubt that a lot of uv's benefits are algo. But everything?
You and the other person are trying to pull a classic motte and bailey. Attempting to make it look as if I'm attacking the very reasonable position that algorithms are the bulk of the improvements why UV is fast.
> 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.