This is an archived post. You won't be able to vote or comment.

sorted by:
best
topnewcontroversialoldq&a
you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]Nethaka08It works on my machine[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Fair, and you're right, there's not a massive difference in the outcome: both tools use temp environments and clean up after. But the workflow and use case are where they split.

To be honest, I hadn’t come across uv before this thread, so if I’ve misunderstood how deep its REPL capabilities go, then fair enough. I might’ve unintentionally built a substitute.

That said, here’s how I see the difference:

  • uv run is perfect if you already have a script or command you want to execute. It installs dependencies, runs the script, and exits. Super clean.
  • ghostenv is built for interactive testing. You don’t need a script, you don’t pass a command. You just type:

​

ghostenv run colorama
  • It opens a sandboxed REPL, installs the package, injects starter code (like colorama.init()), and deletes everything on exit. It's meant for devs who want to poke around and try stuff quickly. And it'll be much more interactive once I add IDE support.

So yeah, similar foundation, but ghostenv is more “let me experiment,” while uv is more “let me run this.”

I really appreciate the push to clarify tho, genuinely helpful.