←back to thread

365 points tanelpoder | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0.235s | 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 #
charliermarsh ◴[] No.44978500[source]
To clarify, `ruff` and `uv` aren't being merged. They remain separate tools. This is more about providing a simpler experience for users that don't want to think about their formatter as a separate tool.

The analogy would be to Cargo: `cargo fmt` just runs `rustfmt`, but you can also run `rustfmt` separately if you want.

replies(7): >>44978537 #>>44978539 #>>44979669 #>>44980254 #>>44980289 #>>44985044 #>>44985715 #
jgauth ◴[] No.44979669[source]
This is cool. Is there a way to call ruff’s linter? Like `uv lint`, which would call `ruff check`.

To your analogy, it’d be like `cargo clippy`

replies(2): >>44980041 #>>44985912 #
1. baggiponte ◴[] No.44985912[source]
uv ruffy sounds funny