Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

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

astral.sh

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

131–140 of 247 posts

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

#131

Post by atoav »

maratc wrote: 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, "…

Yes sure, but the point of something like ruff is that you don't even think about formatting anymore. It is just done for you and it is done consistently.

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

#132

Post by zx8080 »

storus wrote: post #127
Majestic121 wrote: post #14

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…

Dunno, now the workflow is like agent makes code changes, ruff complains, agent fixes complaints at the cost of code bloat, agent makes a PR, another agent reviews the PR, agent makes changes, PR is approved and merged. Nobody reads PRs anymore with the agentic development velocity.

> Nobody reads PRs anymore with the agentic development velocity.

Tokens are burnt, that's the most important part. And with more of the generated shitty code there will be more tokens spent in the future.

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

#133

Post by dirtbag__dad »

maratc wrote: 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 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.

100%. Almost all of my time burned navigating code is not hung up on stylistic conventions but on nasty services with inconsistent abstractions and patterns.

BUT, conventions and consistency make code easier to read and write, period. If you’re debating over single or double quotes that’s almost a fireable offense IMO.

Additionally, when you have a culture that delegates to tools as much as possible, the focus sharpens in a healthy way.

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

#134

Post by gchamonlive »

maratc wrote: 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 "bad" code is actually bad imho. The comment explains intent inside the object rather than on the spec, which makes it easy to miss and harder to discover later.

This seems like a case where the tooling is compensating for unclear conventions. Collaboration tools are useful, but it may be more effective to strengthen the code specifications and documentation practices first, so intent lives in a predictable place instead of being scattered through implementation details.

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

#135

Post by maratc »

elteto wrote: post #128
maratc wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can build yourself any strawman you want :) In my first ten years of writing Python, I never argued about code style with anyone. It's only after they brought the bots in that I learned that my style is somehow "bad."

Well, it’s nice you bring up strawmen after you called me a hobgoblin (a delicious word btw). I hope this _divine_ irony is not lost on someone like yourself. > I learned that my style is somehow "bad." That’s what you are missing: your style is not bad at all. It’s just your style. Use it for yourself! Teams work on shared ground. Automatic formatting is just part of that shared ground.

I’ve written it up-thread: you want me (and possibly, everybody) to be a cog wheel. But I want to be an artist.

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

#136

Post by jon-wood »

I really wish Ruff would introduce something similar to Nix’s stateVersion, which is used to determine the set of defaults that will be applied. Updating Ruff at a scale beyond a single repo is a bit of a crapshoot currently, with every version introducing a bunch of new default rules which you then have to deal with immediately (either by turning them off or fixing them).

I’m aware we could have an allowlist in place which specifies all rules that are turned on but I’d much rather have a simpler config file, and be able to bump the state version at a good time for everyone to spend a few hours fixing new violations.

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

#137

Post by mpyne »

maratc wrote: post #104
refactor_master wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But your choice of funny variable names is not a craft, and you’re not a craftsman if you think it matters. What matters is extensibility, maintainability and value delivered. I care how the food tastes, not that the chef has a really cool Japanese knife and is really fast at cutting onions.

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 hidden implication in your extension of the foodie analogy is that consistent food must have worse quality.

That's not true, and if anything in software having consistent software delivery makes it more likely to achieve Michelin-graded level of quality, not less.

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

#138

Post by colechristensen »

rsyring wrote: post #119
maratc wrote: 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, "…

I've read through all the sub-comments you've left here. 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…

A person just as opinionated as the tool. People who have very strong opinions about formatting in any direction are suspect.

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

#139

Post by ckolkey »

maratc wrote: 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, "…

Put a comma after "'z': 2" and it will work how you expect, fyi
Post reply on HN