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

91–100 of 247 posts

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

#91

Post by silverwind »

gopherino wrote: post #27
gempir wrote: 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

It does and it is even better. It is called the Go Analysis Framework ( https://pkg.go.dev/golang.org/x/tools/go/analysis ). It is fairly new so not well known but it is what powers go fix and go vet under the hood. And I believe the Go team is currently working on making it possible for module authors to easily describe their own custom analysis passes that would run automatically when running go fix. It is extremel…

On problem of such go linters is they can only lint what the compiler sees so if you have multiple `build` tags, you need to run multiple lint passes. No other language's linter operates like they, they all operate on file level.

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

#92

Post by cyberrock »

maratc wrote: post #64
wodenokoto wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’s because you forgot a comma after the last item. If you had kept that the items wouldn’t have been compacted (at least in black, I’ve stopped linking my code because it breaks intends of formatting more often than it helps)

Sorry, but I did not "forg[e]t a comma after the last item". I intentionally did not put a comma there. The list of the "important numbers" in my example is already complete and perfect, and is not supposed to ever change. I wanted to emphasise this fact by specifically omitting the comma there, in the hope that intelligent people in the future would get this message exactly as I intended for it to be.

I think all of us have worked on code that other people thought was perfect or will never change. Personally I love this rule because it saves me from looking at one extra commit (adding the comma when the next value gets added) when I'm trying dig through line history.

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

#93

Post by silverwind »

Thaxll wrote: post #51
gempir wrote: 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

Golang-ci exists for a while and everyone is using it. Not sure what you're talking about.

It's like 100 times slower than ruff. They had to massive caching techniques to get it to a remotely acceptable speed.

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

#94

Post by Leynos »

bbor wrote: 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…

Zerover for life

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

#95

Post by ludwik »

insanitybit wrote: post #49
microtonal wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

These used to happen all the time. In one (otherwise great) programming course in university you would even get points subtracted if you did not follow the lecturer's preferred style. (I think that in their case it was partially because uniformity made correcting faster.)

At work? School isn't really representative.

Oh, absolutely. I started writing Python professionally in 2010. Whenever a new group of people started working on a Python project, one of the first things they had to decide was tabs versus spaces. Everyone would begin by saying that the question was unimportant and silly, but then immediately add a “but” followed by a detailed justification of their personal preference. That would lead to people spending two full days exchanging arguments and links to blog posts.

Worse, sometimes you would start working on a project without having that discussion first, only to discover a few days later that the code was failing because different people had different indentation settings in their IDEs, both regarding tabs versus spaces and the number of spaces. You would then have to pause the work, go back, have the discussion, and decide who was going to fix all the code committed so far.

This only stopped when linters became popular. They may be a little like vaccines: when they work, you do not see them working, so it is easy to forget what things were like before. But believe me, when they appeared, they were a breath of fresh air. We could finally focus on discussing the work rather than the conventions.

And tabs versus spaces is only one example. There used to be PR discussions about countless style issues throughout the entire lifetime of a project. That was not entirely unreasonable, because a consistent style genuinely makes a project easier to work on. But when every individual convention has to be negotiated by humans, it takes enormous amounts of energy and becomes tedious very quickly.

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

#96

Post by maratc »

elteto wrote: post #76
maratc wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, adored by little statesmen and philosophers and divines." -- Ralph Waldo Emerson

TIL I am divine! By the way, you have the exact energy of someone who would argue about code style: a prima donna who quotes Emerson when confronted with disagreement.

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."

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

#97

Post by vorticalbox »

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, "…

this is why i like golang these sorts of things just don't matter, go fmt move on with life.

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

#98

Post by CuriouslyC »

maratc wrote: post #86
CuriouslyC wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Using a consistent string delimiter has value: if you search for ['foo'] you will find all instances of the string foo. With inconsistent delimiters, you better have a single canonical 'foo' in your project or you're going to run into problems.

See if you know where this leads before clicking on it: https://xkcd.com/208/

So your argument is that your freedom to use whatever string delimiter you want (remember that ''', """, ` and even weird unicode glyphs are valid in many languages) is worth forcing other engineers on the team to know all valid string delimiters and remember to use the right regex to account for all possible weirdo choices?

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

#99

Post by maratc »

CuriouslyC wrote: post #98
maratc wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

See if you know where this leads before clicking on it: https://xkcd.com/208/

So your argument is that your freedom to use whatever string delimiter you want (remember that ''', """, ` and even weird unicode glyphs are valid in many languages) is worth forcing other engineers on the team to know all valid string delimiters and remember to use the right regex to account for all possible weirdo choices?

My argument is that searching for \bfoo\b will produce all the results you want.

Python was designed from the start so that 'foo' and "foo" are equal. It also worked like that for 30 years or so. This has not been an issue in these 30 years. But then someone came with an opinion that one of them is better than the other.

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

#100

Post by refactor_master »

maratc wrote: post #83
phoghed wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Waiting patiently for the other person to produce a post hoc rationalization about why everybody’s code looking different is in fact a good thing

My argument is more to the tune of "everybody’s code looking slightly different is not a problem in practice as long as I can read and understand it." However since you've asked so nicely here you go: everybody’s code looking different is because all humans are different. It's what makes us human. I am very serious about my craftsmanship, and I bring my "humanity" to it: sometimes I include a cultural reference (as i…

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.

Post reply on HN