On Wed, Aug 24, 2016 at 07:43:31AM -0400, David Davis wrote: > I would hope that all foreman and foreman-related projects would have some > level of rubocop checking even if it’s just basic stuff like whitespace (I > tried to do this for dynflow but closed my PR out after it had conflicts > and no activity).
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think the core of the problem is that some people prefer one and only one way of doing things. You see this in the Zen of Python[1]: There should be one-- and preferably only one --obvious way to do it. Ruby is heavily influenced by Perl which does the opposite and to me appears to support doing things in as many ways as possible. This particular case (hash rockets) is allowing logically equal statements to be written in two different ways. Here the two philosophies collide causing conflict. Beyond PEP 8[2] is a related talk that's great. The speaker goes into simple syntax issues vs real style. While the subject is PEP 8, it applies to non-Python as well. The summary is embrace the language and follow the conventions, but focus on the bigger API instead of the details. While personally I'm in the Python camp here (pick one way and stick with it), I don't feel like I submit sufficient code to have a say in this. My feeling is that there's no logical or quality difference and Ruby allows both styles which is common among Ruby code. Therefor both should be allowed. [1]: https://www.python.org/dev/peps/pep-0020/ [2]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wf-BqAjZb8M -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "foreman-dev" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
