3 ms·
If you’re interested in this, you might also be interested in the Crystal language. > Crystal’s syntax is heavily inspired by Ruby’s, so it feels natural to re
by hamandcheese 9y ago
If you’re interested in this, you might also be interested in the Crystal language.
> Crystal’s syntax is heavily inspired by Ruby’s, so it feels natural to read and easy to write, and has the added benefit of a lower learning curve for experienced Ruby devs.
> Crystal is statically type checked, so any type errors will be caught early by the compiler rather than fail on runtime. Moreover, and to keep the language clean, Crystal has built-in type inference, so most type annotations are unneeded.
https://crystal-lang.org https://crystal-lang.org
- mbell 9y agoCrystal bears only very superficial resemblance to ruby. What makes ruby unique is meta-programming and it's object model neither of which Crystal supports in a remotely similar way.
- pkd 9y agoCrystal supports metaprogramming. Just on a much lower level. Ruby metaprogramming is convenient - Crystal's is powerful.
- stereobooster 9y agoCrystal is not Ruby. Please do not advertise it as a drop in replacement. https://github.com/crystal-lang/crystal/issues/4731#issuecomment-318486278 https://github.com/crystal-lang/crystal/issues/4731#issuecom... Imagine you have a big ruby project in production and you want to add static type checking. You won't be able to use Crystal for it, while the idea behind Diamondback Ruby is to be able to integrate it gradually.
- nine_k 9y agoCrystal is closer to Ruby in many aspects than e.g. Rust or Haskell or Nim. It might be an easier step into the land of static typing for someone acquainted to Ruby. It's not a static type checker for Ruby, though.