Do you feel that Npm, mix, cargo went the wrong way, doing too much? It seems like their respective communities _love_ the standard tooling and all that it does. Or is Python fundamentally different?
Python is fundamentally used in different ways, and in particular is much more often used in conjunction with code in other languages that has to be compiled separately and specially interfaced with. It also has a longer history, and a userbase that's interested in very different ways of using Python than the "development ecosystem" model where you explicitly create a project with the aim of adding it to the same package store where you got your dependencies from. Different users have wildly different needs, and tons of the things workflow tools like uv/Poetry/PDM/Hatch/Flit do are completely irrelevant to lots of them. Tons of users don't want to "manage dependencies"; they want to have a single environment containing every package that any of their projects ever uses (and a shoulder to cry on if a version conflict ever arises from that). Tons of users don't want to make a "project" and they especially don't want to set up their Python code as a separate, reusable thing, isolated from the data they're working on with it right now. Tons of users think they know better than some silly "Pip" tool about exactly where each of their precious .py files ought to go on your hard drive. Tons of developers want their program to look and feel like a stand-alone, independent application, that puts itself in C:\Program Files and doesn't expect users to know what Python is. People more imaginative than I could probably continue this train of thought for quite a bit.
For many of the individual tasks, there are small Unix-philosophy tools that work great. Why is typing `poetry publish` better than typing `twine upload`? (And it would be just `twine`, except that there's a `register` command that PyPI doesn't need in the first place, and a `check` command that's only to make sure that other tools did their job properly - and PyPI will do server-side checks anyway.) Why is typing `poetry run ...` better than activating the venv with the script it provided itself, and then doing the `...` part normally?
An all-in-one tool works when people agree on the scope of "all", and you can therefore offer just one of them and not get complaints.
