← Back to context

Comment by meander_water

2 months ago

Actually you can go one better:

  #!/usr/bin/env -S uv run --python 3.14 --script

Then you don't even need python installed. uv will install the version of python you specified and run the command.

alternatively, uv lets you do this:

  #!/usr/bin/env -S uv run --script
  #
  # /// script
  # requires-python = ">=3.12"
  # dependencies = ["foo"]
  # ///

  • The /// script block is actually specified in PEP 723 and supported by several other tools apart from uv.

    • The last time I commented extolling the virtues of uv on here, I got a similar reply, pointing out that PEP 723 specs this behavior, and uv isn’t the only way. So I’ll try again in this thread: I’m bullish on uv, and waiting for Cunningham.

      1 reply →

  • I’ve started migrating all of my ~15 years of one-off python scripts to have this front matter. Right now, I just update when/if I use them. I keep thinking if were handier with grep/sed/regex etc, I’d try to programmatically update .pys system-wide. But, many aren’t git tracked/version controlled, just laying in whatever dir they service(d). I’ve several times started a “python script dashboard” or “hacky tools coordinator” but stop when I remember most of these are unrelated (to each-other) and un/rarely used. I keep watching the chatter and thinking this is probably an easy task for codex, or some other agent but these pys are “mine” (and I knew^ how they worked when I wrote^ them) and also, they’re scattered and there’s no way I’m turning an agent loose on my file system.

    ^mostly, some defs might have StackOverflow copy/pasta

    • You could run ripgrep on your file system root to find most of them, its insanely fast, then feed it to claude or something to generate a script to do it for you.

  • This is an awesome features for quick development.

    I'm sure the documentation of this featureset highlights what I'm about to say but if you're attracted to the simplicity of writing Python projects who are initialized using this method, do not use this code in staging/prod.

    If you don't see why this is not production friendly it's for the simple a good.reaaon that creating deployable artifacts packaging a project or a dependency of a project this uses this method, creating reproducible builds becomes impossible.

    This will also lead to builds that pass your CI but fail to run in their destination environment and vice versa due to the fact that they download heir dependencies on the fly.

    There may be workarounds and I know nothing of this feature so investigate yourself if you must.

    My two cents.

  • This isn't really "alternatively"; it's pointing out that in addition to the shebang you can add a PEP 723 dependency specification that `uv run` (like pipx, and some other tools) can take into account.

  • I'm actually a bit annoyed that uv won. I found pdm to be a really nice solution that fixed a lot of the issues poetry had without the hard ideological stance behind it, while fixing most of its problems. But maybe that ideology was partly what drove it's adoption.

Yeah, but you need `uv`. If we are reaching out for tools that might not be around, then you can also depend on nix-shell,

    #! /usr/bin/env nix-shell
    #! nix-shell -i python3 --packages python3

That shebang will work on GNU link based systems, but might not work elsewhere. I know that’s the most popular target, but not working on macOS, BSDs, or even busybox.

> Then you don't even need python installed. uv will install the version of python you specified and run the command

What you meant was, "you don't need python pre-installed". This does not solve the problem of not wanting to have (or limited from having) python installed.