Comment by wasabi991011
2 days ago
I don't think being one word longer ("uvx ruff format" vs "uv format") counts as being is worse.
I think it is much worse to create a special case that obscures the actual formatter being run and how it is being run (is ruff now preinstalled, or is it downloaded and cached in the same way as other tools?)
Let me rewrite your comment a little bit to make clearer what you’re saying.
> I don’t think additional complexity counts as being worse.
Yes, it does.
But you have to know about ruff. I didn't, but I did know about uv.
Not really. If you know about uv, you know how to use "uv tool run", so you know how to use any formatter of your choice (which you can find easily on Google, arguably easier than reading the documentation and learning about uv format).
He said "you have to know about ruff". You're not really refuting that by saying "no you don't, you can just google it".
But I don’t know what the formatter of choice is. Nor do I care what it is. I just want to format my code
Well, it is arguably worse to run an unknown, not version pinned, unconfigured formatter over your code and expect it to improve things, unless the code is an utter catastrophe in terms of formatting.
It is completely irrelevant.
You’re offloading responsibility to uv devs in this case.
2 replies →