As someone who has been doing Ruby for 20 years, the bbatsov style guide is bonkers. Rubocop can be good, but it needs too much configuration to make it not fo

As someone who has been doing Ruby for 20 years, the bbatsov style guide is bonkers. Rubocop can be good, but it needs too much configuration to make it not follow bbatsov guide — which is simply wrong on a number of levels. Recently, I’ve started using https://github.com/testdouble/standard https://github.com/testdouble/standard as a wrapper around Rubocop. It is both less and more opinionated than Rubocop, but aside from two style choices (`%w[]` — using `[]` there is legal but not idiomatic Ruby IMO; I also prefer terminal dots rather than leading dots (e.g., `foo.\nbar` instead of `foo\n.bar`), it doesn’t bother me nearly as much as Rubocop’s defaults do. There are many things that Rubocop gets wrong in its defaults. The absolute single #1 thing it gets wrong is markers. It sort-of supports the only useful distinction, laid out by Jim Weirich (`foo {}` when block return values are used such as `[…].map {…}`; `foo do end` for blocks without a meaningful return such as `[…].each do … end`). However, its "semantic" mode does this in the least-useful-way possible, by looking at the method names before the block. It may be the only way that Rubocop can do it, but…