Utilities for refactoring and upgrading Ruby code based on ASTs

Re:Utilities for refactoring and upgrading Ruby code based o... by arp242 on Tuesday May 07, 2024 @02:05AM (#40282824)

It's just a thing someone pushed just yesterday to see if they can try and do better. It's explicitly marked as experimental. They don't need to write any rationale on why they made it, much less a detailed one. Nothing was "deflected"; what an awful choice of language.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Utilities for refactoring and upgrading Ruby code based o... by lloeki on Tuesday May 07, 2024 @02:44AM (#40283021)

> 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.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Utilities for refactoring and upgrading Ruby code based o... by arp242 on Tuesday May 07, 2024 @02:52AM (#40283066)

Yes, that was what was linked. I can read. What is your point?

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Utilities for refactoring and upgrading Ruby code based o... by lloeki on Tuesday May 07, 2024 @03:01AM (#40283105)

Merely 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.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Utilities for refactoring and upgrading Ruby code based o... by arp242 on Tuesday May 07, 2024 @03:55AM (#40283352)

I 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)

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Utilities for refactoring and upgrading Ruby code based o... by baweaver on Tuesday May 07, 2024 @10:11AM (#40285661)

Consider 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.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Utilities for refactoring and upgrading Ruby code based o... by hi-v-rocknroll on Tuesday May 07, 2024 @02:17AM (#40282888)

If it's not fully formed and doesn't offer a specific advantage, then why is it here?

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Utilities for refactoring and upgrading Ruby code based o... by arp242 on Tuesday May 07, 2024 @02:54AM (#40283075)

I was unaware that you're only allowed to publish something if it's fully complete, to the satisfaction of randos on hacker news. Are you actively trying to discourage people from posting their projects or is that just an accidental side-effect?

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Utilities for refactoring and upgrading Ruby code based o... by baweaver on Tuesday May 07, 2024 @10:07AM (#40285619)

To be fair I didn't post it :)

Yeah, it's still very very early in the process and I released it as I have a talk at Ruby Kaigi going over some of how this works next Tuesday, so I wanted something out even if it's simple for now.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Utilities for refactoring and upgrading Ruby code based o... by jemmyw on Tuesday May 07, 2024 @02:41AM (#40283010)

Because someone posted it and others upvoted the post. I know that's stating the obvious but that's the reason and there doesn't need to be any other.

[ Parent | on HN ]