HackerReposA FIELD GUIDE TO OPEN SOURCE
ProSponsor the shelf♧ 0
← Back to top all-time
rust-lang
rustfmt
Rust2016–2025
rust-lang / rustfmt

rustfmt

Format Rust code

Developer Tools
Explore on GitHubRead Hacker News discussions
19Distinct people
20Mentions
0Explicit recommenders
7KGitHub stars
REPOSITORY AT A GLANCE

What to know before exploring

What it is

Format Rust code

GitHub

Where it is used

No documented product use was verified in the last source check.

What people are saying

No recommendation phrase was found in the indexed comments.

No classified warning is attached to this page. Read the discussions before treating silence as approval.

Also in these discussions

No other repository is repeatedly linked in the same discussions.

This week on Hacker News

Nov 7–Nov 14 UTC · Direct repository links and separately labeled related project stories. Indexed through 11/14/2026, 1:49:46 PM UTC.

No direct repository links were found in the indexed HN discussions over the past seven days. Older discussions are available below.

Mentions over time

HN mentions by year20 dated mentions

Observed mentions: 2016-03-04 12:58:04 UTC to 2025-08-22 13:35:56 UTC.

012342016-01-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2017-01-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 3 mentions; 1 submissions, 2 comments20162017-01-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2018-01-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 3 mentions; 0 submissions, 3 comments2018-01-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2019-01-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 4 mentions; 0 submissions, 4 comments2019-01-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2020-01-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 comments2020-01-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2021-01-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 3 mentions; 0 submissions, 3 comments20202021-01-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2022-01-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 2 mentions; 1 submissions, 1 comments2022-01-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2023-01-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 1 mentions; 0 submissions, 1 comments2023-01-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2024-01-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 1 mentions; 0 submissions, 1 comments2024-01-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2025-01-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 1 mentions; 0 submissions, 1 comments2025-01-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2026-01-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 2 mentions; 0 submissions, 2 comments2025

Counts come from the repository’s dated source evidence. Index cutoff: 2026-11-02 08:16:59 UTC.

View mention counts and date ranges
UTC ranges include their start and exclude their end. Select a period to filter the source evidence.
PeriodStart (UTC)End (exclusive, UTC)MentionsSubmissionsComments
20162016-01-01 00:00:00 UTC2017-01-01 00:00:00 UTC312
20172017-01-01 00:00:00 UTC2018-01-01 00:00:00 UTC303
20182018-01-01 00:00:00 UTC2019-01-01 00:00:00 UTC404
20192019-01-01 00:00:00 UTC2020-01-01 00:00:00 UTC000
20202020-01-01 00:00:00 UTC2021-01-01 00:00:00 UTC303
20212021-01-01 00:00:00 UTC2022-01-01 00:00:00 UTC211
20222022-01-01 00:00:00 UTC2023-01-01 00:00:00 UTC101
20232023-01-01 00:00:00 UTC2024-01-01 00:00:00 UTC101
20242024-01-01 00:00:00 UTC2025-01-01 00:00:00 UTC101
20252025-01-01 00:00:00 UTC2026-01-01 00:00:00 UTC202

What Hacker News says

20 sources
woodruffw·Aug 22, 2025
If you want to call ruff directly, this doesn't change anything. It's a purely optional feature. However, to answer the question generally: people want this for the same reason that most people call `cargo fmt` instead of running rustfmt[1] directly: it's a better developer experience, particularly if you don't already think of code formatting as an XY-type problem ("I want to format my code, and now I have to discover a formatter" versus "I want to format my code, and my tool already has that"). [1]: https://github.com/rust-lang/rustfmt
In Code formatting comes to uv experimentally
shepherdjerred·Dec 28, 2023
The author provides very surface-level criticism of two Rust tools , but they don't look into why those choices were made. I'm ignoring the Python complaint since it's discussed in other comments. With about five minutes of my time, I found out: wrap_comments was introduced in 2019 [0]. There are bugs in the implementation (it breaks Markdown tables), so the option hasn't been marked as stable. Progress on the issue has been spotty. --no-merge-sources is not trivial to re-implement [1]. The author has already explained why the flag no longer works -- Cargo integrated the command, but not all of the flags. This commit [2] explains why this functionality was removed in the first place. Rust is open source, so the author of this blog post could improve the state of the software they care about by championing these issues. The --no-merge-sour
Read the rest
ces error message even encourages you to open an issue, presumably so that the authors of Cargo can gauge the importance of certain flags/features. You could even do something much simpler, like adding a comment to the related issues mentioning that you ran into these rough edges and that it made your life a little worse, or with a workaround that you found. Alternatively, you can continue to write about how much free software sucks. [0]: https://github.com/rust-lang/rustfmt/issues/3347 [1]: https://github.com/rust-lang/cargo/pull/10344 [2]: https://github.com/rust-lang/cargo/commit/3842d8e6f20067f716...
In You can't do that because I hate you
eesmith·Sep 4, 2022
My example was "twice by one developer", not "twice across all indexed repos." A spot check shows that quite a few in your link are used specifically to ensure correct handling of Rust multi-level breaks work syntax, like https://github.com/rust-lang/rust-analyzer/blob/master/crate... , https://github.com/rust-lang/rustfmt/blob/master/tests/sourc... , https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/blob/master/src/tools/rust... , https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/blob/master/src/tools/rust... and likely more. Another is a translation of BASIC code to Rust, using break as a form of goto. https://github.com/coding-horror/basic-computer-games/blob/e... . The Python version at https://github.com/coding-horror/basic-computer-games/blob/e... doesn't use that approach. The example at https://github.com/tokio-rs/mio/blob/master/tests/tcp.rs is a nice one /
Read the rest
/ Wait for our TCP stream to connect 'outer: loop { poll.poll(&mut events, None).unwrap(); for event in events.iter() { if event.token() == Token(1) && event.is_writable() { break 'outer; } } } though it can be replaced with a helper-function (note: I don't fully know what the code is doing, but the following looks right): def find_writable_event(events): for event in events: if event.token() == Token(1) and event.is_writable(): return True while 1: poll.poll(events, None) if find_writable_event(events): break So while there's likely a good real-world example of something which can't easily be re-written in an alternative form for Python, simply pointing to a grep result isn't all that persuasive.
In Python multi-level break and continue
raphlinus·Sep 16, 2020
I can confirm that Rust's macro system presents massive difficulties. For example, rustfmt is currently broken for subdirectory in Druid because of the use of a `cfg_if!` macro. We filed a bug (https://github.com/rust-lang/rustfmt/issues/4266) but it got closed without (as far as I can tell) actually being fixed. Our present approach is to remove the use of the macro, but this is a bit of a bad sign: two features (macros and automatic formatting) that work fine individually, but their interactions break.
In Challenging LR Parsing

Showing the 15 most recent of 20 sources. Enable JavaScript to search and browse every indexed mention.

MAKE YOURSELF AT HOME

A few shortcuts

/
Search the collection
?
Open this guide
Esc
Close dialogs and navigation

Your saved repositories and interests stay in this browser.