111–120 of 247 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's conventional for semver to allow breaking changes for 0.x minor releases (but not for patch releases).
Yes but the question is why Ruff has not released v1 yet. They’re clearly used in production and the entire purpose of v0.x is to signal a project is early in development and is expected to have coarse edges.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think you miss the point, but using your foodie reference: would you rather go to a couple of Michelin restaurants -- where each piece brings a reflection of the chef, the geographic area, and what quality ingredients were available on that day -- or would you rather only eat at McDonald's for an experience that is extremely consistent across days, seasons, and continents? Now imagine a chef who has a nice little r…
The one day, your chef leaves, the food goes to shit and productivity/output/morale drops. When the new chef arrives, then everyone has to relearn everything. Software shouldn't be bespoke and "artisan".
The bigger problem is this: you want me to be a cog wheel, but I want to be an artist.
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, "…
You may do as you like in your projects. You might even find you can make a formatter enforce that rule which is apparently important to you. But one thing I bring to every team is this: “I don’t want to look at a file and say that is Tom’s code or that is your code. What I want to see is [project name] code.”
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, "…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
Every new single piece of software calls itself “extremely fast”, “blazingly fast”, it gets tiring.
What's really tiring is reading such facile "critiques", especially when they are not even applicable.
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, "…
I’m also not sure I understand the “ My place used pylint, flake8, black, ruff -- with hundreds of commits on every change”. These tools don’t add extra commits. You run them prior to your PR, get them aligned with the linting, and then commit the change you were already going to make. Thats 0 extra commits.
For someone ultimately arguing that there is too much effort spent on people’s coding styles, you are spending a lot of effort arguing about people’s coding styles. These tools are some of the most set it and forget it things around.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
Even better: if someone feels like the syntax must be different, they can pick it up at a centralized repository with more people that specialize in syntax. Afterwards it will affect production code everywhere on the planet. :)
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, "…
In short, you seem to have a grievance against linters that goes way past reasonable. You assert this example you give is "perfect" below. You also complain linters waste time and commits despite able evidence in the field they do the opposite.
You seem willing to add drama, grievance, and personal bias to what could have been a rather straightforward technical discussion. The sum of which is: linters sometimes make changes to code that I don't like.
I'd encourage you to reconsider what's really important when it comes to team development and try listening more to those around you. You seem overly focused on asserting your opinion instead of having a discussion.
These types of exchanges are usually very unproductive and stressful in a team environment. They are evidence, IMO, of a dev having the wrong priorities. I'd encourage you to step back and really consider how you view craftsmanship in a team dynamic and whether or not you are fighting the right battles.
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, "…
I also need something to save me from my regexps, the verbose flag helps a lot. but what would be really nice is some sort of python subset that could compile to the state machine. I would also like composable expressions, that is, composable at the graph level not the string composition we are forced to use. And a pony, I would also like a pony.
As you can tell I am not a fan of APL, not because of what it can do but because of the super compressed syntax it adopts. see also: perl