Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why do you think that follows? I was on team dynamic typing for about 12 years, and Ruby was a big part of that. I still think dynamic languages can be wonderful to read and write. But after using modern statically typed languages with good inference, I changed my mind. Many of my old objections were really objections to verbose type systems, not static typing itself. With inference, you can keep a lot of the readabi…
Because it is simply incorrect. I have been using ruby since 2005 or so. Static types were never relevant or needed in the slightest here. The various claims by the type afficionados camps could easily be disproven and rejected, but that never stopped them from trying to ruin other languages. > But I don’t think appreciating modern static typing is just evangelism. But it is evangelism, because the type-addicted devs…
> I have been using ruby since 2005 or so. Static types were never relevant or needed in the slightest here.
We are like Liebniz monads, with disjoint views of the same universe due to our different experiences. I worked for several years at Shopify and there were droves of developers begging for types. Shopify itself recognized this need. We contributed early to Sorbet and began implementing it in the main monolith prior to it being publicly announced. I personally was the incident response on-call for a million-dollar bug that static typing would have prevented from ever being merged. And so on.