3 ms·
To clarify: I'm also not advocating for merging the codebases together, that would be mostly counterproductive (especially since Bun is in Zig, and Oxc and Biom
by pzmarzly 3y ago
To clarify: I'm also not advocating for merging the codebases together, that would be mostly counterproductive (especially since Bun is in Zig, and Oxc and Biome in Rust).
When I think why Rust was successful at establishing community-accepted standard tooling (clippy, rust-lsp), 2 things come to mind:
- Project developers were always promoting each other's tools, pointing them out in docs or blog posts
- Good tools were being pulled into rust-lang GH org (for visibility) and rustup CLI distribution (for ease of system-wide installation)
Both of these things are not technical challenges, they are rather more "political" (require agreements between parties). In JS ecosystem, what would it take for Oxc to say on their website "we are not writing a formatter, please install Biome" and for Biome homepage to say "we are not writing a linter, please install Oxlint"?
- thatxliner 3y agoExcept Biome can also function as a linter
- conaclos 3y agoBiome is the continuation of Rome Tools. It exists since several years and always featured a linter and a formatter. If I remember correctly, OXC was born out of its author's desire to learn Rust and his feeling that Rome Tools/Biome had made complex technological decisions (mainly the use of CST instead of an AST). Rome Tools/Biome chose a CST to bring first-class IDE support: you can format and lint malformed code as you are writing it. I hope more collaboration between Biome and OXC in the future. However, the inherent difference comes from technological choices.