Comment by IshKebab 2 days ago
This is obviously a great move. I don't know why so many commenters here are against making things better. "Can't you just do <this slightly worse thing> already?". Well yes. But it's slightly worse.
But you have to know about ruff. I didn't, but I did know about uv.
Not really. If you know about uv, you know how to use "uv tool run", so you know how to use any formatter of your choice (which you can find easily on Google, arguably easier than reading the documentation and learning about uv format).
But I don’t know what the formatter of choice is. Nor do I care what it is. I just want to format my code
Well, it is arguably worse to run an unknown, not version pinned, unconfigured formatter over your code and expect it to improve things, unless the code is an utter catastrophe in terms of formatting.
fwiw `ruff format` includes nearly all the black rules by default / supports a superset of black's options https://astral.sh/blog/the-ruff-formatter
I find this hard to believe since black doesn't even have the same rules as black's next version and I never changed version without something being reformatted.
Also because of fun, if you reformat again with the older version it won't go back to as it was before :)
I don't think being one word longer ("uvx ruff format" vs "uv format") counts as being is worse.
I think it is much worse to create a special case that obscures the actual formatter being run and how it is being run (is ruff now preinstalled, or is it downloaded and cached in the same way as other tools?)