←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 #
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[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 #
wiseowise ◴[] No.44986799[source]
Some of us prefer well packaged tool that does everything instead of stitching together bazillions of dependencies.
replies(1): >>44986907 #
1. zelphirkalt ◴[] No.44986907[source]
Or maybe some prefer random versions of dependencies being downloaded and running over our code?