Uv format: Code Formatting Comes to uv (experimentally)

Re:Uv format: Code Formatting Comes to uv (experimentally) by calmbonsai on Thursday August 21, 2025 @05:16PM (#44978208)

I see zero need for this given that excellent time-testing code formatting tooling options are already available.

This smacks of feature-creep and I won't be incorporating it into any pipelines for the foreseeable future.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Uv format: Code Formatting Comes to uv (experimentally) by charliermarsh on Thursday August 21, 2025 @06:08PM (#44978691)

`uv format` is just a front-end for `ruff format`. It isn't introducing a new formatter to the ecosystem or anything like that.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Uv format: Code Formatting Comes to uv (experimentally) by nikisweeting on Thursday August 21, 2025 @06:05PM (#44978667)

You realize this is just a shortcut for one of those "time-tested" options, right? ruff format is already widely used.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Uv format: Code Formatting Comes to uv (experimentally) by calmbonsai on Thursday August 21, 2025 @07:59PM (#44979645)

But why bundle? It makes zero design sense to me.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Uv format: Code Formatting Comes to uv (experimentally) by nikisweeting on Thursday August 21, 2025 @08:58PM (#44979999)

go fmt, cargo fmt, deno fmt, dart format, etc. it's hardly a new trend to ship a formatter with an all-in-one package manager for a language. It's convenient for new projects to not have to set up an additional dependency.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Uv format: Code Formatting Comes to uv (experimentally) by RossBencina on Friday August 22, 2025 @12:16AM (#44980945)

I'm not clear on this, but does it not also setup a backward dependency between the new project and uv?

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Uv format: Code Formatting Comes to uv (experimentally) by nikisweeting on Friday August 22, 2025 @03:27AM (#44981853)

Oh no I would hate to have to depend on my package manager and build system

[ Parent | on HN ]