arXiv preprint ·
Understanding Python Linters through a Comprehensive and Systematic Empirical Study
- Published
- Source
- arXiv preprint, posted before peer review
- Original
- Read it at arXiv
- Topics
Abstract
Code linters, tools that automatically detect code issues, help developers accelerate development and improve code quality by identifying errors early. Unlike previous studies that focused mainly on single linters or informal comparisons, this paper presents the first large-scale empirical study of five widely used Python linters: Ruff, Pylint, Flake8, Mypy and Black, through four key user concerns: linting rule checks, speed, configuration methods, and linter preferences. We analyze 1,551 linting rules, categorize them into five types, and construct rule mappings, finding that more than 40% are shared between multiple linters, with Ruff and Pylint together covering over 80% of all rules. Pylint has the most rules in the first two categories, and Ruff leads in the last three. Next, we measure their running times on 1,000 GitHub projects under three setups (single-rule, default, all-rules), finding a consistent speed ranking from fastest to slowest: Ruff, Mypy, Flake8, Black, and Pylint. Ruff is extremely fast, with runtimes typically within one second. Then, we summarize four configuration methods and four types of configuration options from 443 available options across the five linters. While all linters support the four configuration methods, they differ in project configuration formats and flexibility in their configuration options. Finally, an analysis of 3,094 GitHub projects using the five linters reveals that over 50% use multiple linters, share strong consensus on option selections and rule suppressions, but exhibit project-specific variations in enabled-rule configurations. Our findings provide actionable insights for linter users and establish a benchmark dataset and taxonomy to support future research, such as cross-linter rule mapping, performance modeling, and automated configuration.
The authors’ abstract, as arXiv lists it. arXiv’s listings, abstracts included, are free for anyone to reuse.
Read it on ReadSearch
Each opens after you create an account, and brings you back to this paper.
More in Software Engineering
Thinking-in-Bets at Test Time Reduces Sycophantic Revisions in LLM Agents
ProCerDCL: Query-Efficient Black-Box Probabilistic Verification of Deep Learning Compiler Optimization
The Physical Cost of Context: Quality-Constrained Resource Accounting for Coding Agents
From Ripple to Boundary: Deterministic Impact Boundaries for LLM-Based Software Evolution
Arya Forge: Auditing Validation and Release Approval for Financial Instruction Data
Get the few papers worth your time in Software Engineering every morning.
ReadSearch reads the new papers in your field each day and brings you the few worth reading, each with its key finding in a sentence.