3 ms·

The HN commenters in a nutshell: ruff: Aww, you're sweet! uv format: Hello, human resources? Meanwhile, they provide identical functionality. (`Under the hoo

by cwyers 1y ago

The HN commenters in a nutshell: ruff: Aww, you're sweet! uv format: Hello, human resources? Meanwhile, they provide identical functionality. (`Under the hood, it calls Ruff’s formatter to automatically style your code according to consistent standards.`)

zahlman 1y ago
Memes aside, the conceptual grouping of tools does matter.
0cf8612b2e1e 1y ago
But why do it? Keep each tool focused on its specific goal. Will there eventually be a call to deprecate ruff because it already exists in uv? Both tools are still evolving enough that I would not want their individual release cycles to impact each other.
- charliermarsh 1y ago
  Good questions. I don't think we'd ever deprecate Ruff because `uv format` exists, and adding `uv format` won't have any impact on Ruff's release cycles or development. The analogy would be to Cargo: `cargo fmt` just runs `rustfmt`, but you can also run `rustfmt` separately if you want. A lot of users just want a simpler experience. They want to install uv, run `uv run` to run their project, `uv format` to format it, etc. The idea here is to experiment with providing that functionality and see if folks find it useful. Maybe they won't want it! It's experimental :)
replygirl 1y ago
i expect to hear "hey replygirl, can we upgrade from ruff to uv format?" from 5 of my coworkers in the next month, and "what's the difference between ruff and uv format?" from another 10. per interaction i expect 2 minutes of reading and explaining, plus an average 5 minutes listening to the other party wax philosophical. so the convenience costs my job $400
- cwyers 1y ago
  I'm just going to ask this: if your coworkers ask "can we upgrade from ruff to uv format," and it takes you that much time to explain it, have you just considered going "sure thing," spending two hours on Twitter, and pushing a commit and getting paid for it?
  - replygirl 1y ago
    now i've spent 2 minutes implementing, 1 minute drafting and assigning the pr, 10 minutes checking everything, 10 minutes each of two reviewers' time, 10 minutes of qa's time, and 1 minute reporting. it's also likely i spend 2 minutes explaining what it is to each of our PMs and our CTO and why they don't need to worry about it. then i still need to field questions from devs, this time "why did we change this?" and still "what's the difference?". so that costs the company even more.
  - RossBencina 1y ago
    You know what would be easier, "no."
comradesmith 1y ago
Cause one is a formatter and the other is a package manager. That shouldn’t be hard to understand.
- chippiewill 1y ago
  `uv` isn't a package manager (that's the `uv-pip` sub command), it's a project manager. It's meant to manage all aspects of the project.
- nikisweeting 1y ago
  Package managers providing a shortcut to call a standardized formatter is a very popular feature in many languages, also not hard to understand the appeal: - cargo fmt - go fmt - deno fmt - dart format
  - agos 1y ago
    - mix format too!
laurent_du 1y ago
Yeah the reaction is weird. It's 100% optional. People just love to complain.

by cwyers 1y ago

zahlman 1y ago

Memes aside, the conceptual grouping of tools does matter.

0cf8612b2e1e 1y ago

But why do it? Keep each tool focused on its specific goal. Will there eventually be a call to deprecate ruff because it already exists in uv? Both tools are still evolving enough that I would not want their individual release cycles to impact each other.

charliermarsh 1y ago
Good questions. I don't think we'd ever deprecate Ruff because `uv format` exists, and adding `uv format` won't have any impact on Ruff's release cycles or development. The analogy would be to Cargo: `cargo fmt` just runs `rustfmt`, but you can also run `rustfmt` separately if you want. A lot of users just want a simpler experience. They want to install uv, run `uv run` to run their project, `uv format` to format it, etc. The idea here is to experiment with providing that functionality and see if folks find it useful. Maybe they won't want it! It's experimental :)

replygirl 1y ago

i expect to hear "hey replygirl, can we upgrade from ruff to uv format?" from 5 of my coworkers in the next month, and "what's the difference between ruff and uv format?" from another 10. per interaction i expect 2 minutes of reading and explaining, plus an average 5 minutes listening to the other party wax philosophical. so the convenience costs my job $400

cwyers 1y ago
I'm just going to ask this: if your coworkers ask "can we upgrade from ruff to uv format," and it takes you that much time to explain it, have you just considered going "sure thing," spending two hours on Twitter, and pushing a commit and getting paid for it?
- replygirl 1y ago
  now i've spent 2 minutes implementing, 1 minute drafting and assigning the pr, 10 minutes checking everything, 10 minutes each of two reviewers' time, 10 minutes of qa's time, and 1 minute reporting. it's also likely i spend 2 minutes explaining what it is to each of our PMs and our CTO and why they don't need to worry about it. then i still need to field questions from devs, this time "why did we change this?" and still "what's the difference?". so that costs the company even more.
- RossBencina 1y ago
  You know what would be easier, "no."

comradesmith 1y ago

Cause one is a formatter and the other is a package manager. That shouldn’t be hard to understand.

chippiewill 1y ago
`uv` isn't a package manager (that's the `uv-pip` sub command), it's a project manager. It's meant to manage all aspects of the project.
nikisweeting 1y ago
Package managers providing a shortcut to call a standardized formatter is a very popular feature in many languages, also not hard to understand the appeal: - cargo fmt - go fmt - deno fmt - dart format
- agos 1y ago
  - mix format too!

laurent_du 1y ago

Yeah the reaction is weird. It's 100% optional. People just love to complain.