# Uv - another Rust tool written to replace Pip

**URL:** <https://discuss.python.org/t/uv-another-rust-tool-written-to-replace-pip/46039>\
**Category:** Packaging\
**Created:** [February 15, 2024, 8:26pm UTC](https://discuss.python.org/t/uv-another-rust-tool-written-to-replace-pip/46039 "2024-02-15T20:26:27Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 1\
**Showing post:** 23

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![notatallshaw](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex002/user_avatar/discuss.python.org/notatallshaw/32/10861_2.png) [@notatallshaw](https://discuss.python.org/u/notatallshaw)\
**Post date:** [February 16, 2024, 3:44pm UTC](https://discuss.python.org/t/uv-another-rust-tool-written-to-replace-pip/46039/23 "2024-02-16T15:44:34Z")

</div>

> [@pitrou](#):
>
> In any case, this is becoming off-topic.

Yes, I agree, to get on topic the point I was making is that these new tools aren’t trying to start a new ecosystem, or create new (non-)standards, and that _is_ a success, regardless of the nuances of why conda created it’s own ecosystem.

Users have a choice of tools and increasingly better tools, which is a success.

And it appears that some of these tools have the resources to aim to tackle common Python user workflow issues such as managing package and requirement lifecycles, and manage environments, in a completely unified way. Which would be a success, because the current core packaging tools [do not have the resources](https://discuss.python.org/t/why-doesnt-pip-write-installed-packages-to-pyproject-toml/43657/9) to handle it themselves.

---

_[View the full topic](https://discuss.python.org/t/uv-another-rust-tool-written-to-replace-pip/46039)._