←back to thread

365 points tanelpoder | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0.241s | source
Show context
cwyers ◴[] No.44978375[source]
The HN commenters in a nutshell:

ruff: Aww, you're sweet!

uv format: Hello, human resources?

Meanwhile, they provide identical functionality. (`Under the hood, it calls Ruff’s formatter to automatically style your code according to consistent standards.`)

replies(5): >>44978486 #>>44978506 #>>44978586 #>>44978650 #>>44981401 #
0cf8612b2e1e ◴[] No.44978506[source]
But why do it? Keep each tool focused on its specific goal. Will there eventually be a call to deprecate ruff because it already exists in uv?

Both tools are still evolving enough that I would not want their individual release cycles to impact each other.

replies(1): >>44978574 #
1. charliermarsh ◴[] No.44978574[source]
Good questions. I don't think we'd ever deprecate Ruff because `uv format` exists, and adding `uv format` won't have any impact on Ruff's release cycles or development. The analogy would be to Cargo: `cargo fmt` just runs `rustfmt`, but you can also run `rustfmt` separately if you want.

A lot of users just want a simpler experience. They want to install uv, run `uv run` to run their project, `uv format` to format it, etc. The idea here is to experiment with providing that functionality and see if folks find it useful. Maybe they won't want it! It's experimental :)