The point of the "grammar nazi" bots is to focus on the actual problems: if a bot is deciding about linting, you don't have to waste brain power to discuss it in PRs.

It is what it is, everyone gets the same, shut up and work on what matters.

I'm surprised you consider it a lot of energy spent, I tend not to spend any on this, it just runs automatically on my code and I drop out of pretty much every discussions about linting as it's good enough with automated tools.

I also used to work in places where there was no such tools, and there I had to actually spend time discussing and thinking about linting.

Those tools actually save team energy. Without them any programmer has different opinion on formating, code quality, what is readable etc. You can discuss it endlesly or you can just use ruff.

It does and it is even better. It is called the Go Analysis Framework (https://pkg.go.dev/golang.org/x/tools/go/analysis).

It is fairly new so not well known but it is what powers go fix and go vet under the hood. And I believe the Go team is currently working on making it possible for module authors to easily describe their own custom analysis passes that would run automatically when running go fix.

It is extremely easy to define your own analysis.Analyzer struct that describes your own static analysis pass. You get access to all sorts of useful information such as the AST, types, even SSA info and you can even compose the information between analyzers. Then you can easily compile it into a binary and run it by passing that binary to go fix with a command line flag. The go toolchain itself handles all the complex caching logic so that your analyzers run fast.

Since it is made by the go team itself and part of the toolchain it should slowly become the unified standard you are looking for. So hopefully golangci-lint and others should eventually all unify under this framework.

You can easily give it a go by telling some AI agent to write some Go Analysis analyzers and telling them to drive them with go fix. My Go projects tend to accumulate a bunch of these to enforce all sorts of rules deterministically and automatically instead of some imprecise markdown file.

Oh wow, not so long ago the sentiment was exactly opposite. Python community was struggling with tools and everyone wished to have `gofmt` for Python.

Granted, this is a linter, not a formatter, but my larger point is I am glad that Python ecosystem evolved like it did recently.

I’m not entirely sure what you mean by a fragmented ecosystem? Go has first-party formatting and linting and the language is deliberately restricted to ensure it is written in a certain way, even when written by complete novices.

Compare that to Python or TypeScript which are Wild West languages without opinionated first-party tooling, and it’s clear why Ruff/Biome feel great.

You just wouldn’t get that same high with Go.

feel free to build it

What? I feel go has one of the best language tooling out there without requiring a bully ide to do stuff. golangci-lint is quite comprehensive. What do you miss otherwise?

(Honestly go's distributing itself has covered a lot of it)

100% agree, I am upgrading my projects now. And yet, I have mixed feelings about this. I like to think that when I (was) writing code myself, I applied a great deal of intuition to decide when to skip or ignore some rule. On the hand, I also saw projects were developers where using pylint with most rules enabled and I have to say the code was not better - on the contrary it had plenty of hacks to make pylint happy at the cost of illegible code.

Not unlike that experience, I also saw coding agents spend lots of tokens trying to fix a benign issue, as well as doing the opposite - like disabling the tests !!! when they don't pass. :facepalm:

I grew to trust AI results in terms of overall correctness, but I still have hard time trusting their *judgement* on the *code quality*.

Maybe it's just me, but getting overrun with "413 x potential warnings" hardly sounds useful :) Great for greenfield, less so for existing projects. Although nowadays, fire up your agent with "/goal work through and address all lint warnings by fixing the code according to XYZ" and leave it alone for a couple of hours and I guess it's no longer an issue...

Don't get me wrong, the new level of details coming from Ruff is much appreciated and a good thing :)

It is fully according to their versioning policy:

https://docs.astral.sh/ruff/versioning/

But also compliant with semver:

Major version zero (0.y.z) is for initial development. Anything MAY change at any time. The public API SHOULD NOT be considered stable.

https://semver.org/

It's conventional for semver to allow breaking changes for 0.x minor releases (but not for patch releases).