nanocolors VS standard

You can see the original commit history in old forks of nanocolor, e.g:

* https://github.com/antonk52/nanocolors/commits/main * https://github.com/corysimmons/nanocolors/commits/main?after...

You can, indeed, see that they lack all of the original repo's commits.

Rubocop has a default rule that says to put parentheses when there are parameters; even Standardrb has a default ([https://github.com/standardrb/standard/blob/8307fa8f449f896075ccad 74bf6a128ed2c26189/config/base.yml#L1098:title])

gem "rubocop" - https://github.com/rubocop/rubocop | Set up code guidelines for your dev team, I recommend using whatever Standard recommends.

Cynically, reading heavily between the lines, this reads to me like DHH just found out lots of rubyists like standardrb. https://github.com/standardrb/standard -- and this is his quick reaction to it.

This is a huge reason why I still use StandardJS and—shifting back to Ruby—why I rejected the countless requests for implementing line-length or any other metrics analysis rules for [StandardRB](https://github.com/standardrb/standard). There is always a legitimate edge case when it comes to length of lines and functions and the alternative—chopping them off arbitrarily—is rarely an improvement.

This approach is known as Standard Ruby. It can also be completed with plugins, including one for Ruby on Rails projects.

Oh, this is fantastic! Would you be willing to send a quick PR to our README?

[0] https://github.com/testdouble/standard

If you don't want to fiddle with configuration files and the wealth of options provided by RuboCop, consider taking a look at the Standard project. It's largely a pre-configured version of RuboCop that aims to enforce a consistent style in your Ruby project without allowing the customization of any of its rules. The lightning talk where it was first announced gives more details about its origin and motivations.