231–240 of 484 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> just make a choice Now you are bikeshedding. Just go with the defaults.
Which defaults? The programming languages I’ve worked with don’t have defaults for everything related to formatting. Editor defaults don’t work, since not everybody uses the same editor. So you have to make a choice somewhere.
I've never understood why people care so much about the linter settings. It's so obviously bikeshedding, just make a choice, run the linter automatically and be done with it. I'm too busy doing actual software engineering to care about where exactly everything goes - I promise after a week you'll just get used to whatever format your team lands on.
If you ride a bike every day, bike sheds are rather important. If you write and edit and read and search code every day, code formatting is rather important.
The tradeoff here is not being able to use a universal set of tooling to interact with source files. Anything but text makes grep, diff, sed, and version control less effective. You end up locked into specialized tools, formats, or IDE extensions, while the Unix philosophy thrives on composability with plain text. There's a scissor that cuts through the formatting debate: If initial space width was configurable in th…
Text surely is a hill, but I believe it's a local one, we got stuck on due to our short-sighted inability to go into a valley for a few miles until we find the (projectional) mountain. All of your examples work better for code with structural knowledge: - grep: symbol search (I use it about 100x as often as a text grep) or https://github.com/ast-grep/ast-grep - diff: https://semanticdiff.com (and others), i.e.: hide…
* [Difftastic](https://difftastic.wilfred.me.uk/) — my go-to diff tool for years * [Nu shell](https://www.nushell.sh/) — a promising idea, but still lacking in design/implementation maturity
What I’d really like to see is a *viable projectional editor* and a broader shift from text-centric to data-centric tools.
The issue is that nearly everything we use today (editors, IDEs, coreutils) is built around text, and there’s no agreed-upon data interchange format. There have been attempts (Unison, JetBrains MCP, Nu shell), but none have gained real traction.
Rare “miracles” like the C++ --> Rust migration show paradigm shifts can happen. But a text → projectional transition would be even bigger. For that to succeed, someone influential would need to offer a *clear, opt-in migration path* where:
* some people stick with text-based tools, * others move to semantic model editing, * and both can interoperate in the same codebase.
What would be needed:
* Robust, data-native alternatives to [coreutils](https://wiki.archlinux.org/title/Core_utilities) operating directly on structured data (avoid serialize ↔ parse boundaries). Learn from Nushell’s mistakes, and aim for future-compatible, stable, battle-tested tools. * A more declarative-first mindset. * Strong theoretical foundations for the new paradigm. * Seamless conversion between text-based and semantic models. * New tools that work with mainstream languages (not niche reinventions), and enforce correctness at construction time (no invalid programs). * Integration of semantic model with existing version control systems * Shared standards for semantic models across languages/tools (something on the scale of MCP or LSP — JetBrains’ are better, but LSP won thanks to Microsoft’s push). * Dual compatibility in existing editors/IDEs (e.g. VSCode supporting both text files and semantic models). * Integrate knowledge across many different projects to distill the best way forward -> for example learn from Roslyn's semantic vs syntax model, look into tree sitter, check how difftastic does tree diffing, find tree regex engines, learn from S-expressions and LISP like languages, check unison, adopt helix editor/vim editing model, see how it can eb integrated with LSP and MCP etc.
This isn’t something you can brute-force — it needs careful planning and design before implementation. The train started on text rails and won’t stop, so the only way forward is to *build an alternative track* and make switching both gradual and worthwhile. Unfortunately it is pretty impossible to do for an entity without enough influence.
I've never understood why people care so much about the linter settings. It's so obviously bikeshedding, just make a choice, run the linter automatically and be done with it. I'm too busy doing actual software engineering to care about where exactly everything goes - I promise after a week you'll just get used to whatever format your team lands on.
some settings have advantages. For example, trailing commas on tables [ 'apple', 'banana', 'orange', ] has an advantage over [ 'apple', 'banana', 'orange' ] Because adding a new line at the end of the table (1) requires editing 1 line, instead of 2 (2) makes the diffs in code review smaller and easier to read and review. So a bad choice makes my life harder. The same applies to local variable declarations. Sorted lis…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
People like you are the exact reason why linter is a thing.
Don’t be rude. I write perfectly legible code. More legible than a linter infact. Because the rules for what is ideal are not so simple as to be encoded in simple lint rules. Sure it gets like 95%. But the last 5% is so bad it ruins the positives. If your goal is “code that is easy to read and understand” then a linter is only maybe the first 20%. Lots of well linted code is thoroughly inscrutable.
> you could view the source however you wanted. Spaces vs. tabs didn't matter because neither affects the semantics and the editor on the system let you modify the program tree directly (known today as projectional editing). But formatting still doesn't matter. Outside of whitespace-dependent languages, formatting is a subjective thing -- it's a people concern, not a computer concern. I can store my JavaScript as AST…
There are annoying edge cases where formatting does matter, such as whitespace around HTML text nodes, e.g.: foo vs: foo
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Give a try to 132 mode, maybe? It was the standard paper width for printouts since, well, forever.
Printing industry have not been anything close to forever, even writing is relatively novel compared to human spoken languages. All that said, I'm interested with this 132 number, where does it come from?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Formatters eliminating long lines is a pet peeve of mine. About once every other project, some portion of the source benefits from source code being arranged in a tabular format. Long lines which are juxtaposed help make dissimilar values stand out. The following table is not unlike code I have written: setup_spi(&adc, mode=SPI_01, rate=15, cs_control=CS_MUXED, cs=0x01); setup_spi(&eeprom, mode=SPI_10, rate=13, cs_co…
Another issue with fixed line lengths is that it requires tab stops to have a defined width instead of everyone being able to choose their desired indentation level in their editor config.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Devs have different pixel count screens. Your table wrapped for me. The short line equivalent looks best on my screen. Thus 80 or perhaps 120 char line lengths!
So fix your setup? Why should others with wider screens leave space on their screen empty for your sake? Especially 80 characters is a ridiculously low limit that encourages people to name their variables and functions some abbreviated shit like mbstowcs instead of something more descriptive.
Just use descriptive variable names, and break your lines up logically and consistently. They are not mutually exclusive, and your code will be much easier for you and other people to read and edit and maintain, and git diffs will be much more succinct and precise.
I've never understood why people care so much about the linter settings. It's so obviously bikeshedding, just make a choice, run the linter automatically and be done with it. I'm too busy doing actual software engineering to care about where exactly everything goes - I promise after a week you'll just get used to whatever format your team lands on.
> I've never understood why people care so much about the linter settings. Source code formatting programs are not the same as lint[0] programs. The former rewrites source code files such that the output is conformant with a set of layout rules without altering existing logic. The latter is a category of idempotent source code analysis programs typically used to identify potential implementation errors within otherwi…
They slyly add git noise and pollute your audit trails by just going through and moving shit around whenever you save a file.
And sometimes, they actually insert bugs - string formatting errors are my favorite example.
It's for people who think good code is a about adhering to aesthetic ideologies instead of making things documented and accountable.
This is most noticeable in open source contributions. Sometimes I'll get a pull request with like 2 lines of change and 120 lines of some reformating tool.
You think I accept that?
It's not a good idea