Live data from Hacker News

Ruff v0.16.0 – Significant new updates – 413 default rules up from 59

astral.sh

11–20 of 247 posts

Re: Ruff v0.16.0 – Significant new updates – 413 default rules up from 59

#11
post #6

Ruff v0.16 has a small number of breaking changes Why. Why must my poor semver be hurt so! I sorta kinda get why `ty` is pre v1.0.0 -- it's a typechecker that doesn't check a huge number of types. But what are we waiting for with `ruff`? Surely it's eaten whatever the old options were (black? maybe a few takes on py+lint?) by now many times over, and is even more dominant than `uv`. I run this program hundreds of tim…

It's conventional for semver to allow breaking changes for 0.x minor releases (but not for patch releases).

Re: Ruff v0.16.0 – Significant new updates – 413 default rules up from 59

#12
The amount of fascination that people have with these "grammar nazi" bots -- some of them implementing completely arbitrary "rules" and some of them disagreeing with others on what "good" Python code should look like -- doesn't stop to amaze me.

Here's "bad" code:

     important_numbers = {
        'x': 3,
        'y': 42, # Answer to the Ultimate Question!
        'z': 2
    }
Here's what "good" code should look like:

    important_numbers = {"x": 3, "y": 42, "z": 2}  # Answer to the Ultimate Question!
Which completely misses the writer's intent. But did you notice that there are two spaces before the pound now? Also, the quotes are now double because apparently it's somehow more kosher! So much improvement!

The actual problems in the code I work with are not the spaces at the end of line or imports in non-alphabetic order, it's the 10-line list comprehensions that are so long that they're impossible for me to parse. None of these tools catch that. My place used pylint, flake8, black, ruff -- with hundreds of commits on every change. All that energy could be better spent elsewhere.

Re: Ruff v0.16.0 – Significant new updates – 413 default rules up from 59

#13
post #12

The amount of fascination that people have with these "grammar nazi" bots -- some of them implementing completely arbitrary "rules" and some of them disagreeing with others on what "good" Python code should look like -- doesn't stop to amaze me. Here's "bad" code: important_numbers = { 'x': 3, 'y': 42, # Answer to the Ultimate Question! 'z': 2 } Here's what "good" code should look like: important_numbers = {"x": 3, "…

Those tools actually save team energy. Without them any programmer has different opinion on formating, code quality, what is readable etc. You can discuss it endlesly or you can just use ruff.

Re: Ruff v0.16.0 – Significant new updates – 413 default rules up from 59

#14
post #12

The amount of fascination that people have with these "grammar nazi" bots -- some of them implementing completely arbitrary "rules" and some of them disagreeing with others on what "good" Python code should look like -- doesn't stop to amaze me. Here's "bad" code: important_numbers = { 'x': 3, 'y': 42, # Answer to the Ultimate Question! 'z': 2 } Here's what "good" code should look like: important_numbers = {"x": 3, "…

The point of the "grammar nazi" bots is to focus on the actual problems: if a bot is deciding about linting, you don't have to waste brain power to discuss it in PRs.

It is what it is, everyone gets the same, shut up and work on what matters.

I'm surprised you consider it a lot of energy spent, I tend not to spend any on this, it just runs automatically on my code and I drop out of pretty much every discussions about linting as it's good enough with automated tools.

I also used to work in places where there was no such tools, and there I had to actually spend time discussing and thinking about linting.

Re: Ruff v0.16.0 – Significant new updates – 413 default rules up from 59

#15
post #10

I wish Go had something like Ruff! A lot of languages are getting amazing tool but Go has a very fragmented ecosystem with a lot of tools but none of them feel as high quality has the likes of Ruff, Oxc, Biome or even PHP's Mago

[flagged]

Re: Ruff v0.16.0 – Significant new updates – 413 default rules up from 59

#16
post #10

I wish Go had something like Ruff! A lot of languages are getting amazing tool but Go has a very fragmented ecosystem with a lot of tools but none of them feel as high quality has the likes of Ruff, Oxc, Biome or even PHP's Mago

I’m not entirely sure what you mean by a fragmented ecosystem? Go has first-party formatting and linting and the language is deliberately restricted to ensure it is written in a certain way, even when written by complete novices.

Compare that to Python or TypeScript which are Wild West languages without opinionated first-party tooling, and it’s clear why Ruff/Biome feel great.

You just wouldn’t get that same high with Go.

Re: Ruff v0.16.0 – Significant new updates – 413 default rules up from 59

#17
post #10

I wish Go had something like Ruff! A lot of languages are getting amazing tool but Go has a very fragmented ecosystem with a lot of tools but none of them feel as high quality has the likes of Ruff, Oxc, Biome or even PHP's Mago

What? I feel go has one of the best language tooling out there without requiring a bully ide to do stuff. golangci-lint is quite comprehensive. What do you miss otherwise?

(Honestly go's distributing itself has covered a lot of it)

Re: Ruff v0.16.0 – Significant new updates – 413 default rules up from 59

#18
post #13
post #12

The amount of fascination that people have with these "grammar nazi" bots -- some of them implementing completely arbitrary "rules" and some of them disagreeing with others on what "good" Python code should look like -- doesn't stop to amaze me. Here's "bad" code: important_numbers = { 'x': 3, 'y': 42, # Answer to the Ultimate Question! 'z': 2 } Here's what "good" code should look like: important_numbers = {"x": 3, "…

Those tools actually save team energy. Without them any programmer has different opinion on formating, code quality, what is readable etc. You can discuss it endlesly or you can just use ruff.

We can replace the endless and useless discussion on how to format code with an endless and useless discussion on what linting tool to use.

Another option would be to leave both topics alone and go on with our lives, improving the product, fixing bugs, implementing new features, and generally giving customers a better product and shareholders more value, while respectfully agreeing to disagree on the issues of style.

Re: Ruff v0.16.0 – Significant new updates – 413 default rules up from 59

#19
post #13
post #12

The amount of fascination that people have with these "grammar nazi" bots -- some of them implementing completely arbitrary "rules" and some of them disagreeing with others on what "good" Python code should look like -- doesn't stop to amaze me. Here's "bad" code: important_numbers = { 'x': 3, 'y': 42, # Answer to the Ultimate Question! 'z': 2 } Here's what "good" code should look like: important_numbers = {"x": 3, "…

Those tools actually save team energy. Without them any programmer has different opinion on formating, code quality, what is readable etc. You can discuss it endlesly or you can just use ruff.

Gods forbid I talk to people I work with, learn their preferences, and figure out the way we can accommodate each other. Sounds like such a waste of energy. It’s so much better if we all acquiesce to the preferences of some people neither of works with!

Re: Ruff v0.16.0 – Significant new updates – 413 default rules up from 59

#20
post #12

The amount of fascination that people have with these "grammar nazi" bots -- some of them implementing completely arbitrary "rules" and some of them disagreeing with others on what "good" Python code should look like -- doesn't stop to amaze me. Here's "bad" code: important_numbers = { 'x': 3, 'y': 42, # Answer to the Ultimate Question! 'z': 2 } Here's what "good" code should look like: important_numbers = {"x": 3, "…

The point of the "grammar nazi" bots is to focus on the actual problems: if a bot is deciding about linting, you don't have to waste brain power to discuss it in PRs. It is what it is, everyone gets the same, shut up and work on what matters. I'm surprised you consider it a lot of energy spent, I tend not to spend any on this, it just runs automatically on my code and I drop out of pretty much every discussions about…

In my previous place, discussions on coding style were forbidden in PRs. It worked just fine.

Edit: one could also use single or double quotes in strings, and it didn't anger the grammar nazi bots as there were none.

Post reply on HN