I concur and I also think that there are too many build backends.
pdm is my current favorite package manager. It is fully PEP-compliant and the lockfile generation is nice. I wouldn't call hatch a package manager because I don't think it can make lockfiles.
uv is on my radar but it doesn't look ready for primetime yet. I saw they are building out a package management API with commands such as `uv add` and `uv remove`. Cross-platform lockfiles, editable installs, in-project .venv, and a baked-in build backend might be enough for me to make the switch. It's my pipe dream to get the full build/install/publish workflow down to a single static binary with no dependencies.
Anna-Lee Popkes has an awesome comparison of the available package managers [0] complete with handy Venn diagrams.
The pyOpenSci team has another nice comparison of the available build backends [1].
pdm is my current favorite package manager. It is fully PEP-compliant and the lockfile generation is nice. I wouldn't call hatch a package manager because I don't think it can make lockfiles.
uv is on my radar but it doesn't look ready for primetime yet. I saw they are building out a package management API with commands such as `uv add` and `uv remove`. Cross-platform lockfiles, editable installs, in-project .venv, and a baked-in build backend might be enough for me to make the switch. It's my pipe dream to get the full build/install/publish workflow down to a single static binary with no dependencies.
Anna-Lee Popkes has an awesome comparison of the available package managers [0] complete with handy Venn diagrams.
The pyOpenSci team has another nice comparison of the available build backends [1].
[0] https://alpopkes.com/posts/python/packaging_tools/
[1] https://www.pyopensci.org/python-package-guide/package-struc...