4 ms·

I think having a tool to standardise formatting is huge, and a lot of what makes Elixir code easy to read is mix format. That and the fact most of the communit

I think having a tool to standardise formatting is huge, and a lot of what makes Elixir code easy to read is mix format. That and the fact most of the community started out with similar ideas on good code, so there was less bikeshedding around formatting.

dnautics 6y ago
Eh, I think there are more important things, like if you pass a variable to a remote function, it doesn't ever mutate underneath you when you try to use it later.
- mercer 6y ago
  Agreed. I maintain a whole bunch of codebases, many of which are a few years old, and it's so much easier to dust of an Elixir project (pre-formatter) than, say, picking up on a Wordpress or Drupal project.
Fire-Dragon-DoL 6y ago
I have to disagree on this point. Formatting could be beneficial, but it gets abused so fast that it becomes a problem. First thing, no one challenges the choices made by the formatter, which is a problem in the long term. The other thing is how far the formatter goes. Rubocop in ruby is a clear example of this, they went way too far with it and producing a readable rspec test is impossible without violating at least one of the rules. A few days ago, I ended up writing something along these lines: ``` def something err, obj1 = dependency1.call(someargs) return err, obj1 if err.nil? err, obj2 = dependency2.call(obj1) return err, obj2 if err.nil? err, obj3 = dependency3.call(obj2) return err, obj3 if err.nil? err, obj4 = dependency4.call(obj3) return err, obj4 if err.nil? err, obj5 = dependency5.call(obj4) return err, obj5 if err.nil? [nil, obj5] end ``` This is a pipeline, to a human being it looks simple because the "return line" after reading the first time and understanding it's an early exit in case of errors, it's identical in all 5 steps. Human brain just excludes those returns after having read the first one. Rubocop however claims that there is too much complexity going on here due to 5 if branches. That's a machine reading the code. If I have to rewrite the code according to rubocop standards, it ends up being a lot less readable and with a lot more indirection for no particular advantage. I find it funny, we use styleguides to ease human interactions with code, but we let the machine evaluating that. It's problematic, the machine doesn't see the code as us.
- andrewem 6y ago
  Are your objections to Rubocop's dictates in tests only (or primarily) about the complexity rules? The complexity rules have always struck me as being of a whole different category thnan Rubocop's other rules. As you note, they're especially frustrating in tests. Edit: by "the complexity rules" I mean https://www.rubydoc.info/gems/rubocop/0.27.0/RuboCop/Cop/MethodComplexity https://www.rubydoc.info/gems/rubocop/0.27.0/RuboCop/Cop/Met..., rather than the ones about variable naming, line length, etc.
  - Fire-Dragon-DoL 6y ago
    My problem with Rubocop is both in tests and in normal code. The rules about complexity hit both tests and production code, while the rules about tests obviously impact only that (experience limited to RSpec). A senior developer won't need Rubocop, it's a blocker rather than an improvement. In the rare occurrence where you have an undisciplined senior developer, it's worth exploring training or re-evaluating the standards in place. All in all, I keep thinking this is a problem of culture, if it's addressed there the value in Rubocop decreases drammatically. That being said, Elixir formatter is "ok-ish". I didn't have the same problem with it because it doesn't overstep the boundaries of styling. It did remove valuable structure of the code for the sake of formatting standardization, so again it's actually doing damage, but at least it doesn't force you to write code that is more cryptic to a human for the purpose of pleasing a machine.
    - jon-wood 6y ago
      I agree Rubocop is heavy handed in the rules it hands down by default, its really useful as a formatter, but we have an internal gem at work which contains a set of less strict rules around things like complexity and method length to try and get away from having to play code golf all the time to keep Rubocop happy.
- red2awn 6y ago
  Exactly. I worked at a ruby shop a while ago and the rubocop lints makes you write code and test less readable than they can be.

dnautics 6y ago

Eh, I think there are more important things, like if you pass a variable to a remote function, it doesn't ever mutate underneath you when you try to use it later.

mercer 6y ago
Agreed. I maintain a whole bunch of codebases, many of which are a few years old, and it's so much easier to dust of an Elixir project (pre-formatter) than, say, picking up on a Wordpress or Drupal project.

Fire-Dragon-DoL 6y ago

I have to disagree on this point. Formatting could be beneficial, but it gets abused so fast that it becomes a problem. First thing, no one challenges the choices made by the formatter, which is a problem in the long term. The other thing is how far the formatter goes. Rubocop in ruby is a clear example of this, they went way too far with it and producing a readable rspec test is impossible without violating at least one of the rules. A few days ago, I ended up writing something along these lines: ``` def something err, obj1 = dependency1.call(someargs) return err, obj1 if err.nil? err, obj2 = dependency2.call(obj1) return err, obj2 if err.nil? err, obj3 = dependency3.call(obj2) return err, obj3 if err.nil? err, obj4 = dependency4.call(obj3) return err, obj4 if err.nil? err, obj5 = dependency5.call(obj4) return err, obj5 if err.nil? [nil, obj5] end ``` This is a pipeline, to a human being it looks simple because the "return line" after reading the first time and understanding it's an early exit in case of errors, it's identical in all 5 steps. Human brain just excludes those returns after having read the first one. Rubocop however claims that there is too much complexity going on here due to 5 if branches. That's a machine reading the code. If I have to rewrite the code according to rubocop standards, it ends up being a lot less readable and with a lot more indirection for no particular advantage. I find it funny, we use styleguides to ease human interactions with code, but we let the machine evaluating that. It's problematic, the machine doesn't see the code as us.

andrewem 6y ago
Are your objections to Rubocop's dictates in tests only (or primarily) about the complexity rules? The complexity rules have always struck me as being of a whole different category thnan Rubocop's other rules. As you note, they're especially frustrating in tests. Edit: by "the complexity rules" I mean https://www.rubydoc.info/gems/rubocop/0.27.0/RuboCop/Cop/MethodComplexity https://www.rubydoc.info/gems/rubocop/0.27.0/RuboCop/Cop/Met..., rather than the ones about variable naming, line length, etc.
- Fire-Dragon-DoL 6y ago
  My problem with Rubocop is both in tests and in normal code. The rules about complexity hit both tests and production code, while the rules about tests obviously impact only that (experience limited to RSpec). A senior developer won't need Rubocop, it's a blocker rather than an improvement. In the rare occurrence where you have an undisciplined senior developer, it's worth exploring training or re-evaluating the standards in place. All in all, I keep thinking this is a problem of culture, if it's addressed there the value in Rubocop decreases drammatically. That being said, Elixir formatter is "ok-ish". I didn't have the same problem with it because it doesn't overstep the boundaries of styling. It did remove valuable structure of the code for the sake of formatting standardization, so again it's actually doing damage, but at least it doesn't force you to write code that is more cryptic to a human for the purpose of pleasing a machine.
  - jon-wood 6y ago
    I agree Rubocop is heavy handed in the rules it hands down by default, its really useful as a formatter, but we have an internal gem at work which contains a set of less strict rules around things like complexity and method length to try and get away from having to play code golf all the time to keep Rubocop happy.
red2awn 6y ago
Exactly. I worked at a ruby shop a while ago and the rubocop lints makes you write code and test less readable than they can be.