151–160 of 340 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Soutaro is indeed a code member of the Ruby team, he also happens to work at Square. Soutaro is also one of the main contributors to RBS and helped define that standard. He was going to keynote on this at RubyKaigi this year until it was cancelled, and had a talk at RubyConf as well on this.
Thanks for clarifying! It's great that Square is funding work like this.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
A-fucking-men. In the course of my job I write Swift for iOS and Ruby for server APIs and our web-based UIs. Type issues are about 0% of my Ruby bugs, but dealing with all the damn type requirements in Swift regularly takes dozens of minutes to track down when some weird esoteric error message pops up. And God help you if you try to use generics. If you want strong typing, then good for you. Just pick a language that…
Type issues are 0% of your Ruby bugs because you're not using a typechecker. I guarantee you have type errors somewhere if your codebase is large enough.
I'm sure there are developer/projects that both enjoy and benefit from static typing and strict type systems of various kinds. I just want Ruby to remain a place for those of us who aren't in those positions.
I'm not thrilled about the separate files with the type information but I completely understand why they did it, and if it were my choice I might make the same one. I don't like the comparison with TypeScript `.d.ts` files however, because TS still lets you do types inline in the code. I haven't seen it mentioned anywhere that this won't be supported by Ruby 3. Does anybody know if Ruby 3 will also support inline typ…
I much prefer separate files for type declarations. Or at least the ability to define them separately. Type annotation takes away from readability. I like keeping the types and code separate.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Thanks for clarifying! It's great that Square is funding work like this.
Yep, and glad to see the work Stripe is doing on things as well. Always enjoy seeing where you all are going. Soutaro has been great to work with over here (Square), and he has a ton of really amazing things coming soon that we're working on OSS'ing later.
Just to clarify, I left Stripe several months ago (and did not work on ruby infra), so we both get to cheer from the sidelines!
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Type issues are 0% of your Ruby bugs because you're not using a typechecker. I guarantee you have type errors somewhere if your codebase is large enough.
My point is that imposing a big ass type system on developers as a "solution" to a trivial number of actual problems is overkill. I'm sure there are developer/projects that both enjoy and benefit from static typing and strict type systems of various kinds. I just want Ruby to remain a place for those of us who aren't in those positions.
However, even with TypeScript ascendant, the vast majority of people programming JavaScript write vanilla dynamic JS. I don't think dynamically typed Ruby is ever going to die. Whether large enterprise codebases will standardize on requiring type signatures is a different matter, because the benefits always outweigh what downsides you see in static typing once you surpass a certain scale.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
How do you even type local variables?
Why would you need to? Edit: Like, seriously. Either the local var is populated by something coming in externally (which is then typable) or, unless your code is too complex / large, it should be easy to see everywhere it's used, and then why would you need that additional typing info?
Like `foo=open_database("mysql://...")`.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> As they mention in the post, they followed typescript's approach, here. They didn't, though! That's what's confusing me. TypeScript has inline types. .d.ts files are typically for JavaScript files that don't have types embedded.
> They didn't, though! That's what's confusing me. Sure they did. It's the 5th paragraph in the post: "We defined a new language called RBS for type signatures for Ruby 3. The signatures are written in .rbs files which is different from Ruby code. You can consider the .rbs files are similar to .d.ts files in TypeScript or .h files in C/C++/ObjC. The benefit of having different files is it doesn't require changing Rub…
.rbs files: have types
.rb files: no types
.d.ts files: have types
.ts files: have types
It's a pretty significant difference. So they didn't "follow typescript's approach" here.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Which is great.
Yeah, it is. I'm having a really hard time understanding this "I need types forced down my throat" and "I like typing 3x as much as I would otherwise need to" and "yes, I want half my screen obscured by the types of everything I'm doing, not the actual code" and the "adding types now means bugs are impossible" mass cult hysteria that's running so rampant. Typing very occasionally prevents bugs that are generally easy…