Show HN: Ruby static type checker – proof of concept
1–10 of 25 posts
Re: Show HN: Ruby static type checker – proof of concept
#2I'm incredibly impressed. @stereo, can you speak a bit to your ambitions? Have you talked with any ruby-core team about integrating what you're doing?
Re: Show HN: Ruby static type checker – proof of concept
#3Another interesting project is RDL: https://github.com/plum-umd/rdl
Both Diamondback and RDL come out of UMD. I'm curious what drives this research there. From what I can tell, Ruby is barely touched otherwise by academia.
Re: Show HN: Ruby static type checker – proof of concept
#4Another interesting project is RDL: https://github.com/plum-umd/rdl Both Diamondback and RDL come out of UMD. I'm curious what drives this research there. From what I can tell, Ruby is barely touched otherwise by academia.
From what I could gather from this talk at Strangeloop, RDL seems like an evolution or expansion of Diamondback: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=buY54I7mEjA (See ~21:30ish for discussion of the various attempts along the way.)
Was a really interesting and well-done talk, IMO. I am not a type system geek, but thought it was fascinating to hear all of the tradeoffs that go into designing a system like this.
Re: Show HN: Ruby static type checker – proof of concept
#5So far, the author writes, it only supports 1.8 and not all of standard library. But if it ever supports 2.4 + Rails, that would be enormous.
Re: Show HN: Ruby static type checker – proof of concept
#6Another interesting project is RDL: https://github.com/plum-umd/rdl Both Diamondback and RDL come out of UMD. I'm curious what drives this research there. From what I can tell, Ruby is barely touched otherwise by academia.
> From what I can tell, Ruby is barely touched otherwise by academia.
There’s a tiny bit more Ruby in academia but not much http://rubybib.org/
Re: Show HN: Ruby static type checker – proof of concept
#7Although this might not be a direct comparison, based on how things go in the Ruby community, personally I feel dry-types & dry-struct (https://speakerdeck.com/flashgordon/typed-ruby) might be a better solution for typing. Yes it doesn't solve every problem, but for the business logic side of problem, this can be a decent solution.
Re: Show HN: Ruby static type checker – proof of concept
#8Although this might not be a direct comparison, based on how things go in the Ruby community, personally I feel dry-types & dry-struct ( https://speakerdeck.com/flashgordon/typed-ruby ) might be a better solution for typing. Yes it doesn't solve every problem, but for the business logic side of problem, this can be a decent solution.
I've been having a look http://dry-rb.org/ it seems pretty interesting
Re: Show HN: Ruby static type checker – proof of concept
#9Another interesting project is RDL: https://github.com/plum-umd/rdl Both Diamondback and RDL come out of UMD. I'm curious what drives this research there. From what I can tell, Ruby is barely touched otherwise by academia.
From what I could gather from this talk at Strangeloop, RDL seems like an evolution or expansion of Diamondback: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=buY54I7mEjA (See ~21:30ish for discussion of the various attempts along the way.) Was a really interesting and well-done talk, IMO. I am not a type system geek, but thought it was fascinating to hear all of the tradeoffs that go into designing a system like this.
RDL and Diamondback have a different approach. Diamondback works with given code without modification and able to find (some) errors, RDL needs code modification. See this issue https://github.com/plum-umd/rdl/issues/33#issuecomment-31707...
Re: Show HN: Ruby static type checker – proof of concept
#10Although this might not be a direct comparison, based on how things go in the Ruby community, personally I feel dry-types & dry-struct ( https://speakerdeck.com/flashgordon/typed-ruby ) might be a better solution for typing. Yes it doesn't solve every problem, but for the business logic side of problem, this can be a decent solution.
But those are for dynamic typing. I was looking for static typing