←back to thread

Code formatting comes to uv experimentally

(pydevtools.com)
365 points tanelpoder | 3 comments | 21 Aug 25 20:26 UTC | HN request time: 0.024s | source
Show context
alkh ◴[21 Aug 25 21:02 UTC] No.44978054[source]▶
I enjoy using uv a lot but am getting afraid that it is getting bloated for no reason. For ex., the number of niche flags that a lot of subcommands support is very high + some of them seemingly achieve the same result(uv run --no-project and uv run --active). I'd rather them working on improving existing tools and documentation than adding new (redundant) functionality
replies(4): >>44978481 #>>44978543 #>>44981333 #>>44986265 #
darkamaul ◴[22 Aug 25 05:37 UTC] No.44981333[source]▶
I don’t understand why adding a subcommand to uv is being considered bloat.

uv is already a complex tool, but it has excellent documentation. Adding a straightforward, self-explanatory subcommand like this doesn’t seem out of place.

replies(2): >>44983267 #>>44988651 #
1. zelphirkalt ◴[22 Aug 25 11:37 UTC] No.44983267[source]▶
Developing a good and configurable formatter is a project almost as complex as uv's main focus, managing packages. As such it will divert time and attention from its main purpose and the outcome is questionable, considering how many bad formatters are out there. For example the "opinionated" black is terrible and has no awareness of semantics.
replies(2): >>44983354 #>>44983429 #
2. alfons_foobar ◴[22 Aug 25 11:48 UTC] No.44983354[source]▶
The formatter already exists, my understanding is that this is merely an alias for "uvx ruff"...
3. charliermarsh ◴[22 Aug 25 11:56 UTC] No.44983429[source]▶
We already develop a formatter: Ruff (https://github.com/astral-sh/ruff). Ruff and uv are built by the same team. `uv format` is just an optional front-end to `ruff format`.