3 ms·

I think DHH explains the reason pretty well in the article > That’s why we’re shipping a default linter, cleverly called RuboCop, in the next version of Rails.

I think DHH explains the reason pretty well in the article > That’s why we’re shipping a default linter, cleverly called RuboCop, in the next version of Rails. Not such that I, or anyone, can mandate what style your codebase ought to be written in, but such that you can find and enforce your own. So every new Rails project has preset of linting style, which defaults to whatever the Rails team chose, but the point is that people are free to adjust the config file to whatever they prefer. So the same style is applied through the codebase.

pelagicAustral 3y ago
No, that's all peachy, but you're just going to tell me the post doesn't start with one idea, smoothly moves on, and just past the code example, wraps it up by completely dismantling the premise?
- lcnPylGDnU4H9OF 3y ago
  > but linters are draconian in nature His point is actually that linters lacking configuration are draconian. > Some languages, like Go, have a built-in linter, which applies a universal style that’s been set by the language designers. That’s the most totalitarian approach. I'd doubt it's the "built-in" aspect; it sounds quite a bit like it's the "universal style" that the author doesn't like.