←back to thread

365 points tanelpoder | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0.001s | 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 #
zem ◴[] No.44978583[source]
this is very much in line with the unix philosophy - it delegates formatting to ruff and simply provides a unified front end that calls out to the right specialized tool. think of it as a makefile.
replies(3): >>44978776 #>>44982952 #>>44983430 #
zelphirkalt ◴[] No.44983430{3}[source]
If I want to call ruff, I can do so myself. Why should I want to call it through uv?
replies(2): >>44984524 #>>44986799 #
1. woodruffw ◴[] No.44984524{4}[source]
If you want to call ruff directly, this doesn't change anything. It's a purely optional feature.

However, to answer the question generally: people want this for the same reason that most people call `cargo fmt` instead of running rustfmt[1] directly: it's a better developer experience, particularly if you don't already think of code formatting as an XY-type problem ("I want to format my code, and now I have to discover a formatter" versus "I want to format my code, and my tool already has that").

[1]: https://github.com/rust-lang/rustfmt