What's wrong with just using virtualenv. I never used anything else, and I never felt the need to. Maybe it's not as shipping l shiny as the other tools, but it just works.
The problem is you can do whatever you want in it, and then have no way of reproducing that.
pyproject.toml tries to fix it, poetry kept wanting to use their own wonky names for the tags, I'm not sure why.
Once that is standardized, venvs should be cattle and not pets. That is all that is needed. UV makes that fast by hardlinking in the libraries and telling you the obvoius (that venvs should be cattle and not pets)
I think poetry “lost” because they had to build ahead of the PEPs that standardized their way of doing things. I don’t think uv could exist without the work the poetry people put in, it served as a pretty powerful demonstration of the fact that better python packaging was possible.
There’s nothing wrong with just using virtualenv. I too have used virtualenv plus pip (and sometimes pyenv) for the longest time without issue.
However, uv is the first alternative that has tempted me to switch. uv offers performance improvements over pip and handles pyenv use cases as well. I’ll be paying attention to pyx to see how it pans out.
Nothing is inherently wrong with virtualenv. All these tools make virtual environments and offer some way to manage them. But virtualenv doesn't solve the problem of dependency management.
