I don't think we'll ever fully agree, but I'd just like to clarify that I value that kind of craftsmanship too!

I just honestly believe that if you fully automate the formatting, the results are better than if you do it painstakingly by hand; better by virtue of being more consistent. It's using the right tool for the job.

▲

tacitusarc 3 days ago | parent [-]

Did you read the example pietnas gave? The changed formatting ruined the communicative intent of his code. Formatters do that a lot, and it makes the code unambiguously worse.

I don’t really care about whether the back is plywood or whatever. I don’t know how to write plywood code. I do care about creating clear, readable code that communicates my intent. Sometimes formatters help with that. Often they hinder, as they reflect the arbitrary aesthetic preferences of their creators.

▲

iainmerrick 2 days ago | parent [-]

I don't see "pietnas" anywhere; do you mean the "important_numbers" example from maratc?

If so, I think a trailing comma is the correct fix, as described here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45168308

In this case I think the trailing comma is an improvement, so the formatter is steering you towards a better overall solution. However, even if you dislike the trailing comma, it's more important for the formatting to be consistent and robust, so I still think it's better to work within the limitations of the formatter.

	▲	tacitusarc 2 days ago \| parent [-]
		I honestly have no idea where I read pietnas. The comment you identified was the one I was referring to. I care about consistency, but not foolishly so. I suppose an important question is: under what circumstances is consistency undesirable? I believe that consistency is not an end goal, but a means to achieve clear communication. When being consistent results in less clarity, it should be abandoned in favor of more effective communication.