51–60 of 340 posts
I absolutely hate this. Separate files for types with no inline annotations possible? What an embarrassing compromise. This is all because Matz explicitly won't allow type signatures in .rb files. I wonder how long it'll be until a hostile fork if he doesn't change his mind.
`.h` files are not something to emulate! External interfaces should be generated by tools where needed.
Can someone explain why the types cannot live in Ruby code itself (after an appropriate version bump)? Python 3 incorporated types into the language itself, in a similar way (though non-reified) to PHP. This seems much easier to deal with than requiring two files (.rb and .rbs) to describe a single data structure.
Separate ruby header files with type information? Seriously? What's the rational behind that? Is it just to make clear that the ruby interpreter doesn't really care about the type information and doesn't use it to improve the code's performance? With all due respect, but IMHO this is too little and much too late.
"The benefit of having different files is it doesn't require changing Ruby code to start type checking. You can opt-in type checking safely without changing any part of your workflow."
> Typed versus untyped is a 30-year-old issue for programming languages. I'm pretty sure the merits of typed vs untyped has been going on since the 1950s at least. 30 years is such a specific period of time that it makes me wonder what happened in the early 90s that the author is referring to.
Ruby was invented? :)
I absolutely hate this. Separate files for types with no inline annotations possible? What an embarrassing compromise. This is all because Matz explicitly won't allow type signatures in .rb files. I wonder how long it'll be until a hostile fork if he doesn't change his mind.
I wouldn’t call it “embarrassing.” What is the actual benefit of having inline type annotations? What is the actual downside of having them in a separate file?
It has been so long since I last heard activities on Ruby. I had assume people moved on to Go or Rust for high traffic work by now.
I absolutely hate this. Separate files for types with no inline annotations possible? What an embarrassing compromise. This is all because Matz explicitly won't allow type signatures in .rb files. I wonder how long it'll be until a hostile fork if he doesn't change his mind.
I wouldn’t call it “embarrassing.” What is the actual benefit of having inline type annotations? What is the actual downside of having them in a separate file?
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.
I don't see how having to switch files to know that `input` is a `User` increases readability, though. It seems like straight-forward impl-simplicity trade-off, not one of user ergonomics.