HI version is available. Content is displayed in original English for accuracy.
Advertisement
Advertisement
⚡ Community Insights
Discussion Sentiment
75% Positive
Analyzed from 2245 words in the discussion.
Trending Topics
#code#ruff#great#tools#python#more#linting#lint#rules#https
Discussion (67 Comments)Read Original on HackerNews
Here's a few commits of changes:
(A whole bunch of manual changes based on its suggestions) https://github.com/nickjj/plutus/commit/9af66d31f98bef841588...
(Re-enable line length) https://github.com/nickjj/plutus/commit/21789f89bbcee37913c1...
(Force _ prefix for unused variables) https://github.com/nickjj/plutus/commit/a272c77b932e1c78558a...
(Auto-corrected by Ruff) https://github.com/nickjj/plutus/commit/6fe69cf88385ebdf9b8c...
Here's "bad" code:
Here's what "good" code should look like: Which completely misses the writer's intent. But did you notice that there are two spaces before the pound now? Also, the quotes are now double because apparently it's somehow more kosher! So much improvement!The actual problems in the code I work with are not the spaces at the end of line or imports in non-alphabetic order, it's the 10-line list comprehensions that are so long that they're impossible for me to parse. None of these tools catch that. My place used pylint, flake8, black, ruff -- with hundreds of commits on every change. All that energy could be better spent elsewhere.
It is what it is, everyone gets the same, shut up and work on what matters.
I'm surprised you consider it a lot of energy spent, I tend not to spend any on this, it just runs automatically on my code and I drop out of pretty much every discussions about linting as it's good enough with automated tools.
I also used to work in places where there was no such tools, and there I had to actually spend time discussing and thinking about linting.
Edit: one could also use single or double quotes in strings, and it didn't anger the grammar nazi bots as there were none.
That's why I like Go, every piece of code looks the same, there's one default enforced linter and this discussion (or discussion if discussion should be allowed or prohibited) doesn't even cross anyones mind.
Afterwards it will affect production code everywhere on the planet. :)
(I think that in their case it was partially because uniformity made correcting faster.)
But one thing I bring to every team is this: “I don’t want to look at a file and say that is Tom’s code or that is your code. What I want to see is [project name] code.”
Another option would be to leave both topics alone and go on with our lives, improving the product, fixing bugs, implementing new features, and generally giving customers a better product and shareholders more value, while respectfully agreeing to disagree on the issues of style.
That is why gofmt is so great. As the saying goes: gofmt’s style is nobody’s favorite, yet gofmt is everybody’s favorite.
It boggles me that anyone would argue against standardization, or believe that “just get hundreds of people to agree today and tomorrow and every future day” is a better solution.
I find that people who argue against automatic linting and formatting tend to be the same that would argue incessantly about style. So much wasted energy, I want none of that.
Also, in your example above, if you put the comment on the line _above_ instead of inline the formatter will most likely do the right thing.
-- Ralph Waldo Emerson
It is fairly new so not well known but it is what powers go fix and go vet under the hood. And I believe the Go team is currently working on making it possible for module authors to easily describe their own custom analysis passes that would run automatically when running go fix.
It is extremely easy to define your own analysis.Analyzer struct that describes your own static analysis pass. You get access to all sorts of useful information such as the AST, types, even SSA info and you can even compose the information between analyzers. Then you can easily compile it into a binary and run it by passing that binary to go fix with a command line flag. The go toolchain itself handles all the complex caching logic so that your analyzers run fast.
Since it is made by the go team itself and part of the toolchain it should slowly become the unified standard you are looking for. So hopefully golangci-lint and others should eventually all unify under this framework.
You can easily give it a go by telling some AI agent to write some Go Analysis analyzers and telling them to drive them with go fix. My Go projects tend to accumulate a bunch of these to enforce all sorts of rules deterministically and automatically instead of some imprecise markdown file.
Let's spread the word
Gofmt is great but it's still not very strict, the amount of times my colleagues have argued about formatting in Go is still too great, stuff like consts, types, funcs, methods order, struct initialziation newlines and other details that do matter, but they should be decided one and then applied everywhere like that.
Granted, this is a linter, not a formatter, but my larger point is I am glad that Python ecosystem evolved like it did recently.
Go can get there, but like I said, I think everyone is building some partial tools that solve some problems, but there is not that one player building that one great tool.
Not sure what you're talking about.
That's not the fault of golangci-lint, it's just the concept of bringing together a bunch of different linters and keeping it fast is impossible. And the configuration is a bit wild too, because every linter obviously has their own decisions on how it wants to be configured.
Ruff can lint in seconds or even sub second.
Compare that to Python or TypeScript which are Wild West languages without opinionated first-party tooling, and it’s clear why Ruff/Biome feel great.
You just wouldn’t get that same high with Go.
Gofmt is a great idea but it isn't strict enough for my taste. Go does not have any first party static analyzers, closest is Staticcheck which is even sponsored by Google themselves
(Honestly go's distributing itself has covered a lot of it)
https://github.com/gempir/strider
It's definitely possible, if Google would put like one or two smart minds on the problem full time they could easily solve this problem and make the ecosystem so much stronger. But I'm guessing they already have something like this in-house and no interest in open sourcing it.
Not unlike that experience, I also saw coding agents spend lots of tokens trying to fix a benign issue, as well as doing the opposite - like disabling the tests !!! when they don't pass. :facepalm:
I grew to trust AI results in terms of overall correctness, but I still have hard time trusting their *judgement* on the *code quality*.
Don't get me wrong, the new level of details coming from Ruff is much appreciated and a good thing :)
Generally gets you 90% there.
Good thing we have LLM:s that can do the tedious work of checking each case and applying local annotations or updating the config globally! If I was stuck doing this manually, I would have just gotten rid of ruff and went back to black+pylint.
I sorta kinda get why `ty` is pre v1.0.0 -- it's a typechecker that doesn't check a huge number of types. But what are we waiting for with `ruff`? Surely it's eaten whatever the old options were (black? maybe a few takes on py+lint?) by now many times over, and is even more dominant than `uv`.
I run this program hundreds of times a day so I'm generally excited for new features, but I guess the OAI acquisition has made me ornery when it comes to these folks. Apologies to kindly nerds who made this release happen, and congrats <3
It is fully according to their versioning policy:
https://docs.astral.sh/ruff/versioning/
But also compliant with semver:
Major version zero (0.y.z) is for initial development. Anything MAY change at any time. The public API SHOULD NOT be considered stable.
https://semver.org/
(Maybe I misinterpreted your remark, but semver does not get hurt.)