The problem is that many linters are excessively pedantic, require workarounds that are just silly, and if we ask "does it actually improve things?" then ... often not really, not in a substantial way. Once you agree on the "big basics" like brace style or whatever makes sense for your language, you quickly get diminishing (often miniscule) returns.
This also ties in to what I call the "linter fallacy"; which goes something like:
"This code passes 56 linters"
"Therefore, it's good code"
And the related:
"Our code is a mess"
"I spent a week adding 56 linters and rewriting it all to pass"
"Therefore, now our code is good"
What really matters is "can I read this code naturally?" And if the answer to that is "yes" then it may be good code. Obsessing over whether it should be written with some small differences that don't really matter is just not useful for anyone.
This also ties in to what I call the "linter fallacy"; which goes something like:
"This code passes 56 linters"
"Therefore, it's good code"
And the related:
"Our code is a mess"
"I spent a week adding 56 linters and rewriting it all to pass"
"Therefore, now our code is good"
What really matters is "can I read this code naturally?" And if the answer to that is "yes" then it may be good code. Obsessing over whether it should be written with some small differences that don't really matter is just not useful for anyone.