3 ms·
Although 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/
by xuejie 9y ago
Although 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 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.
- vvdcect 9y agoI've been having a look http://dry-rb.org/ http://dry-rb.org/ it seems pretty interesting
- stereobooster 9y agoBut those are for dynamic typing. I was looking for static typing
- xuejie 9y agoPersonally I feel we might never get static typing for Ruby anytime soon, at least it won't be widely adopted in the community, so I'd settle on dynamic typing like this. After all, Crystal is already quite good as a Ruby+static typing solution
- stereobooster 9y agoAgain Crystal is not Ruby. https://github.com/crystal-lang/crystal/issues/4731#issuecomment-318486278 https://github.com/crystal-lang/crystal/issues/4731#issuecom... > we might never get static typing for Ruby anytime soon Yes we will not get type declarations as a part of Ruby syntax anytime soon, but this doesn't mean we can not have static type checking right now