5 ms·

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?

burke 6y ago
If we're going to add type signatures to code, having them visible alongside their definition site is a sizeable part of the value; and, littering directories with doubled files feels suboptimal to say the least. The comparison to typescript in the article isn't really fair, since typescript supports both modes of operation - projects can choose which they'd like to use.
HideousKojima 6y ago
The benefit is being able to see what type a variable is without having to open a separate file. Having an option to also have them in a separate file (ala TypeScript) is perfectly fine
- yawaramin 6y ago
  Type info on hover in your editor gives you that.
mekster 6y ago
How hard is it to imagine that you need to keep 2 files in sync, and that you can't type anything inside a method. I was even hoping to use ruby as a main language having used it before but I'm about to lose any interest in the language when its reality is a bit decoupled from the rest of the world.
- amw-zero 6y ago
  Have you ever worked with a language that has header files (C/C++) or a language that can use them optionally (Ocaml)? In practice, keeping the files in sync isn’t difficult. In fact, it ends up being better (for me) in terms of readability, because I can look up the type definitions in one place, store them as context, and then read code that isn’t littered with type annotations. Type annotations add quite a bit of noise to code. I think that’s what Matz is going for here. You need to be able to keep the readability of Ruby, which he’s dedicated his life to.
  - Jweb_Guru 6y ago
    Not to anecdote too hard, but the practice of doing type signatures out-of-line that you are describing is my absolute least favorite part of OCaml, which is otherwise a very lovely language. As for C++, it has enough other stuff going on that I probably can't say the header files are my least favorite feature, but they certainly don't make life easy. I think it makes sense to challenge that decision from an ergonomics standpoint, even if it makes sense within the constraints the Ruby core team has decided upon.
    - amw-zero 6y ago
      I very much like Ocaml signature files. Jane street recommends using them, as an example. There’s no other way to communicate the high level contract of a module. With type signatures that are in line with the code, the high level contract gets lost.

burke 6y ago

If we're going to add type signatures to code, having them visible alongside their definition site is a sizeable part of the value; and, littering directories with doubled files feels suboptimal to say the least. The comparison to typescript in the article isn't really fair, since typescript supports both modes of operation - projects can choose which they'd like to use.

HideousKojima 6y ago

The benefit is being able to see what type a variable is without having to open a separate file. Having an option to also have them in a separate file (ala TypeScript) is perfectly fine

yawaramin 6y ago
Type info on hover in your editor gives you that.

mekster 6y ago

How hard is it to imagine that you need to keep 2 files in sync, and that you can't type anything inside a method. I was even hoping to use ruby as a main language having used it before but I'm about to lose any interest in the language when its reality is a bit decoupled from the rest of the world.

amw-zero 6y ago
Have you ever worked with a language that has header files (C/C++) or a language that can use them optionally (Ocaml)? In practice, keeping the files in sync isn’t difficult. In fact, it ends up being better (for me) in terms of readability, because I can look up the type definitions in one place, store them as context, and then read code that isn’t littered with type annotations. Type annotations add quite a bit of noise to code. I think that’s what Matz is going for here. You need to be able to keep the readability of Ruby, which he’s dedicated his life to.
- Jweb_Guru 6y ago
  Not to anecdote too hard, but the practice of doing type signatures out-of-line that you are describing is my absolute least favorite part of OCaml, which is otherwise a very lovely language. As for C++, it has enough other stuff going on that I probably can't say the header files are my least favorite feature, but they certainly don't make life easy. I think it makes sense to challenge that decision from an ergonomics standpoint, even if it makes sense within the constraints the Ruby core team has decided upon.
  - amw-zero 6y ago
    I very much like Ocaml signature files. Jane street recommends using them, as an example. There’s no other way to communicate the high level contract of a module. With type signatures that are in line with the code, the high level contract gets lost.