←back to thread

365 points tanelpoder | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0s | source
Show context
thanhhaimai ◴[] No.44978239[source]
I'd rather `ruff` being merged with `ty` instead. `uv` for me is about package / project manager. It's not about code style. The only time `uv` should edit a code file is to update its dependencies (PEP 723).

On the other hand, both `ruff` and `ty` are about code style. They both edit the code, either to format or fix typing / lint issues. They are good candidates to be merged.

replies(7): >>44978308 #>>44978351 #>>44978465 #>>44978499 #>>44978500 #>>44979712 #>>44981364 #
zahlman ◴[] No.44978465[source]
This is the direction I expected things to go, and not something I'm especially fond of. I'll stick with UNIX-philosophy tools, thanks.
replies(5): >>44978583 #>>44979916 #>>44979956 #>>44980082 #>>44981479 #
gchamonlive ◴[] No.44979916[source]
There is wisdom in knowing when -- and how -- to break standards. Don't know if this is the case, but I think it is. If introducing fmt powers to UV meant it had to consider tradeoffs elsewhere where it might hurt its quality somehow then maybe, but in this case UV is more like an umbrella, unifying the interface for pip, venv, builds... And now fmt. All keeping each separate domain isolated without details leaking to one another.
replies(1): >>44980206 #
zahlman ◴[] No.44980206[source]
What do I gain from adding 'uv' to the start of each of these commands, as opposed to having them all just be separate commands?
replies(3): >>44980396 #>>44980623 #>>44980992 #
1. bowsamic ◴[] No.44980992{4}[source]
Well for one thing separate commands that are as good as what uv does don’t exist