> uv seems to be a pet peeve of HN.

Unless I've been seeing very different submissions than you, "pet peeve" seems like the exact opposite of what is actually the case?

I too use pipenv unless there's a reason not to. I hope people use whatever works best for them.

I feel that sometimes there's a desire on the part of those who use tool X that everyone should use tool X. For some types of technology (car seat belts, antibiotics...) that might be reasonable but otherwise it seems more like a desire for validation of the advocate's own choice.

My biggest complaint with pipenv is/was(?) that it's lockfile format only kept the platform identifiers of the platform you locked it on - so if you created it on Mac, then tried to install from the lockfile on a Linux box, you're building from source because it's only locked in wheels for MacOS.

Poetry and uv avoid this issue.

Came here to ask about pipenv. As someone who does not use python other than for scripting, but also appreciates the reproduceability that pipenv provides, should I be using uv? My understanding is that pipenv is the better successor to venv and pip (combined), but now everyone is talking about uv so to be honest it's quite confusing.

Edit: to add to what my understanding of pipenv is, the "standard/approved" method of package management by the python community, but in practice is it not? Is it now uv?