4 ms·
> They don't need to write any rationale on why they made it Just next tho the "experimental" moniker, and within an actual section about Rubocop, they in fact
by lloeki 2y ago
> They don't need to write any rationale on why they made it
Just next tho the "experimental" moniker, and within an actual section about Rubocop, they in fact did provide a simple rationale anyway.
Checks out for me (even if they didn't have to provide any).
(emphasis mine)
> Why Not RuboCop?
> In most cases you likely want to use RuboCop as it has more robust support and testing. This gem is currently more experimental and focused exclusively on refactoring and AST manipulations in a more minimal sense.
- arp242 2y agoYes, that was what was linked. I can read. What is your point?
- lloeki 2y agoMerely that however succinct there's a clear-cut rationale, I read your comment as if there were none but that may be due to lack of caffeine on my side. In that context, the quoting was just for highlighting.
- arp242 2y agoI just meant "they don't need to address every possible concern; in fact, they're not required an explanation at all". (my previous comment was probably a bit sharp; sorry – I'm just so tired of there always being this one person who has to crap all over people's personal projects)
- baweaver 2y agoConsider it a sandbox and a more minimal syntax around what Rubocop already does well. If anything I may try and upstream some of it later after it takes more shape. It's also used to wrap a lot of AST tools for a talk I have next week, hence the earlier release even if it's fairly simple.