interesting idea, good on them for trying something different in the Ruby ecosystem.
The website is quite extensive, but the gem only has ~1.5k downloads. It’s presumably very early on the adoption curve
T-Ruby is Ruby with syntax for types
11–20 of 155 posts
Re: T-Ruby is Ruby with syntax for types
#12Honest question: I like typescript and I think it makes sense:, the web makes you married to JavaScript, so it’s the reasonable path forward if you want types in that context. But what is the point of the recent wave of types for python, Ruby, and similar languages? If it’s type safety you want there, there’s a bajillion other languages you can use right?
the overall field is known as "gradual typing", and it is an attempt to combine some of the benefits of both static and dynamic typing (or to put it more accurately, to explore more of the benefits and tradeoffs on the static to dynamic spectrum). in the "type checkers for ruby/python/js" part of the spectrum what you are trying to ask is "how much static type safety can I add without giving up the power of the dynamic bits", so for instance you have code that generates classes as runtime (not really compatible with a strictly static type system in the most general case), but specific very common uses of code generation, like python's dataclasses, have support within the type checker.
Re: T-Ruby is Ruby with syntax for types
#13 def greet(name: String): String
"Hello, #{name}!"
end
I understand that many programmers come from languages where their brain has been adjusted to necessitate and depend on types. And they get help from the compiler in capturing some errors. But it is the wrong way to think about programs and logic. I'd wish these guys would stop trying to ruin existing languages. Go add types somewhere else please.
Note: I also use java, so I am not against types per se. I am against a want-on need to slap down types onto everything and your Grandma, merely because your brain (of type afficionados) needs them for survival.
Re: T-Ruby is Ruby with syntax for types
#14Honest question: I like typescript and I think it makes sense:, the web makes you married to JavaScript, so it’s the reasonable path forward if you want types in that context. But what is the point of the recent wave of types for python, Ruby, and similar languages? If it’s type safety you want there, there’s a bajillion other languages you can use right?
Religious coders spreading their religion.
Re: T-Ruby is Ruby with syntax for types
#15Honest question: I like typescript and I think it makes sense:, the web makes you married to JavaScript, so it’s the reasonable path forward if you want types in that context. But what is the point of the recent wave of types for python, Ruby, and similar languages? If it’s type safety you want there, there’s a bajillion other languages you can use right?
Yeah. I have the same question and none of the type addicted
folks could answer that. The explanations usually boil down
to "I used C, so now I need types in other languages too".
That's like 90% of the explanations you can see.
Re: T-Ruby is Ruby with syntax for types
#16Honest question: I like typescript and I think it makes sense:, the web makes you married to JavaScript, so it’s the reasonable path forward if you want types in that context. But what is the point of the recent wave of types for python, Ruby, and similar languages? If it’s type safety you want there, there’s a bajillion other languages you can use right?
the overall field is known as "gradual typing", and it is an attempt to combine some of the benefits of both static and dynamic typing (or to put it more accurately, to explore more of the benefits and tradeoffs on the static to dynamic spectrum). in the "type checkers for ruby/python/js" part of the spectrum what you are trying to ask is "how much static type safety can I add without giving up the power of the dynam…
That still has not really explained why they (those who propose that) need types in ruby specifically. Whether python has it or not is not relevant because it is another language. The argument that "language xyz has it, so ruby needs it", can be compelling, but does not necessarily have to be compelling. It needs to have a use case for ruby in and by itself. I don't see that intrinsic use case.
Re: T-Ruby is Ruby with syntax for types
#17Don't show this to DHH
Re: T-Ruby is Ruby with syntax for types
#18Honest question: I like typescript and I think it makes sense:, the web makes you married to JavaScript, so it’s the reasonable path forward if you want types in that context. But what is the point of the recent wave of types for python, Ruby, and similar languages? If it’s type safety you want there, there’s a bajillion other languages you can use right?
(I'm not sure if this still holds under a world where LLMs are doing the majority of writing code but this is my opinion from prior to LLMs) From someone who has worked mostly in Ruby (but also Perl and TypeScript and Elixir) I think for web development, a dynamic language with optional types actually hits maybe the best point for developer productivity IMO. Without any types in a dynamic language, you often end up w…
> the best point for developer productivity IMO.
That is a fair opinion. My opinion is different, but that's totally fine - we have different views here.
What I completely disagree with, though, is this statement:
> Without any types in a dynamic language, you often end up with code that can be quite difficult to understand what kinds of objects are represented by a given variable.
I have been writing ruby code since about 22 years (almost) now. I never needed types as such. My code does not depend on types or assumptions about variables per se, although I do, of course, use .is_a? and .respond_to? quite a lot, to determine some sanitizing or logic steps (e. g. if an Array is given to a method, I may iterate over that array as such, and pass it recursively into the method back).
Your argument seems to be more related to naming variables. People could name a variable in a certain way if they need this, e. g. array_all_people = []. This may not be super-elegant; and it does not have as strong as support as types would, but it invalidates the argument that people don't know what variables are or do in complex programs as such. I simply don't think you need types to manage this part at all.
> Especially in older poorly factored codebases where there are often many variations of classes with similar names and often closely related functions it can feel almost impossible until you're really familiar with the codebase.
Note that this is intrinsic complexity that is valid for ANY codebase. I highly doubt just by using types, people automatically understand 50.000 lines of code written by other people. That just doesn't make sense to me.
> With an actual fully typed language you're much more constrained in terms of what idioms you can use
I already don't want the type restrictions.
> A gradual type system on top of a dynamic language gets you some of the best of both worlds.
I reason it combines the worst of both worlds, since rather than committing, people add more complexity into the system.
Re: T-Ruby is Ruby with syntax for types
#19Honest question: I like typescript and I think it makes sense:, the web makes you married to JavaScript, so it’s the reasonable path forward if you want types in that context. But what is the point of the recent wave of types for python, Ruby, and similar languages? If it’s type safety you want there, there’s a bajillion other languages you can use right?
(I'm not sure if this still holds under a world where LLMs are doing the majority of writing code but this is my opinion from prior to LLMs) From someone who has worked mostly in Ruby (but also Perl and TypeScript and Elixir) I think for web development, a dynamic language with optional types actually hits maybe the best point for developer productivity IMO. Without any types in a dynamic language, you often end up w…
> Without any types in a dynamic language, you often end up with code that can be quite difficult to understand what kinds of objects are represented by a given variable. Especially in older poorly factored codebases where there are often many variations of classes with similar names and often closely related functions it can feel almost impossible until you're really familiar with the codebase.
One of the worst parts of exploring an unfamiliar codebase written in a language without type labeling is tunneling through the code trying to figure out what this thing you see being bounced around in the program like the a ball in a pinball machine actually is.
Re: T-Ruby is Ruby with syntax for types
#20Honest question: I like typescript and I think it makes sense:, the web makes you married to JavaScript, so it’s the reasonable path forward if you want types in that context. But what is the point of the recent wave of types for python, Ruby, and similar languages? If it’s type safety you want there, there’s a bajillion other languages you can use right?
Religious coders spreading their religion.
I agree somewhat, but I'd rather call it their brain adjustment than a religion though.
I think about 99% of people who suggest to slap down types onto dynamic languages have already been using types since decades, or many years, in another language. Now they switch to a new language and want to have types because their brain is used to.