[sebastianmck]

Thanks! Yeah, it is, at least for a while since it will take a very long time to reach expected maturity. You can adopt as many or as little pieces as you want. The idea is that once you adopt one of the "tools", you can use the others and reuse the exact same configuration, and ideally you shouldn't even need to do anything else.

ie. For linting we also do dependency verification. So you might need to configure Rome if you put your dependencies on some weird non-standard place. Once we open bundling up, we'll already know how to resolve everything.

Each part should stand on it's own. It's not as if the linter we've released is worse, and the only selling point is that it's going to be part of a larger suite. It legitimately has features and separates itself from the alternatives. eg. extreme focus on useful error messages, powerful autofixes (that operate on an AST rather than insert strings like ESLint), proper caching for even better performance (ESLint doesn't offer a good solution here) etc.

Many are making the mistake in thinking that building Rome is just as time consuming and resource intensive as rewriting each of the tools it's meant to replace separately, it's not. Once we've validated the linter we've also validated the compiler (it's the same thing), our ability to watch files, analyze dependencies, integrate with your editor etc. Sharing so much fundamentally decreases the actual complexity of everything, not increases.

I think it's also important to note that I personally have written an extremely small amount of the implemented lint rules. Our API is just easier to use, and we've focused on setting up the tooling necessary to make writing them easy (although internally in our repo).

Check out https://github.com/romejs/rome/issues/341, https://github.com/romefrontend/rome/issues/20, and https://github.com/romefrontend/rome/issues/159, if you're interested in seeing how the progress was actually made in the implementation of those rules. The work was spread out over a really long time, and if given complete focus and proper coordination (I was not good at this and kind of let it be organized ad-hoc, which is actually how we got some amazing contributors), then it could have been completed in a fraction of the time.

There's been some overfocus on particular things like minimal configuration and the lack of extensibility but those are not hard requirements and will evolve over time, particularly as we get feedback and people demonstrate the requirements and restrictions they're under. The project understandably involves a lot of hubris, but I do believe that Rome isn't only valuable in aggregate and will have significant advantages even if you only decide to use one piece.

[dgoldstein0]

Thanks for this clarification. My first reaction to reading the project page was "damn a tool that takes doing everything to a whole new level". If it's adoptable piecemeal, there's a good chance that if it becomes popular I may actually get to work with it someday - but if it were an all or nothing proposal, in my current job the answer is likely to be nothing due to challenges integrating with other technologies we use and get value from.

[rattray]

Very interesting! Thanks for clarifying.

I've also done some work on Prettier in the past, so I'm curious about some details there too.

1. Do you plan to build a wadler-based formatter, similar to prettier? Will it be as opinionated as prettier, or based on a pluggable architecture? (I'll admit that I have yet to conceive of a viable way to make the latter work well).

2. Have you considered (or already built) an incremental parsing server for tools like the formatter? For example, when I add a statement at the bottom of the document, will it reparse the whole document, or be smart enough to notice that a change has been made that can use cached results for most of the AST? (I'm not sure if this is feasible for JS, especially for parsers that require line/col info).

In any case, I'll be following your progress with great interest!