[manoDev]

> Java will never become a player in CLI tooling until build packaging becomes first class.

Python packaging has always been painful and it’s a popular option for CLI regardless.

I don’t think there only rational explanations, technology choices are a lot about culture and dogmas too.

[exabrial]

I think the python counterexample speaks a lot. A lot of languages "hide" their footprint in /usr/local or in a venv somewhere; out of sight, out of mind.

The JVM installs cleanly and is self contained, but any artifacts, by default, are not shared system wide as this _always_ have been seen as a security risk. The hot term for it today is "supply chain attack".

Instead, most Java programs tow their dependencies, giving it a bloated feel because its all just there, present in front of you, stored and running as your own user.

[myko]

I know Python has been big in the space for longer than uv's existence, but uv (https://docs.astral.sh/uv/) has made Python packaging dead simple to me

[CamouflagedKiwi]

I don't think uv makes distribution simple? Unless I've missed something, it doesn't do anything out of the box to help you produce a standalone artifact - it builds wheels but those are only useful for a user that already has python and pip, and don't do anything to deal with Python version drift etc.

[maxandersen]

uv does not solve all problems - but it for sure greatly improves chance of python tools working.

jbang is to java, what uv(x) is to python and what npm/npmx is to javascript.

[somegenericdev]

Python packaging isn't really any more difficult than Rust, C# or Go if you use pyinstaller [1]

A single executable is always just one "pyinstaller --onefile --noconsole main.py" away.

[1] https://pyinstaller.org/en/stable/usage.html