5 ms·

Modern Treasury is a Ruby on Rails shop I really wouldn't want to write a service that deals with money in an unsafe language. It's so easy to make a mistake i

Modern Treasury is a Ruby on Rails shop I really wouldn't want to write a service that deals with money in an unsafe language. It's so easy to make a mistake in ruby there's no compiler to help you.

mflamespin 5y ago
There's lots of Java development that deals with money movement that is suspect. All languages and frameworks are just tools. It depends on how you use them. Compilers are no guarantee for correctness if how you're modeling types is improper.
- ianpurton 5y ago
  Well to me it's defence in depth. I've used Ruby in a cryptocurrency project and I've used Rust. I know there are no guarantees but I wouldn't go back to ruby. There are just too many times when the compiler catches something I missed.
quadrature 5y ago
It definitely a scary proposition. But it's worth mentioning that two of the world's biggest money moving platforms (Stripe and Shopify) are written in ruby.
- valenterry 5y ago
  Stripe decided to write a type checker for it though, probably for good reasons: https://sorbet.org/ https://sorbet.org/
  - quadrature 5y ago
    Yup, also being used at Shopify. Types are awesome, but these companies got very far by betting big on the productivity of ruby before this became a concern.
    - valenterry 5y ago
      Not claiming that ruby isn't productive, but I could as well rephrase that into "these companies got very far despite the lack of productivity of ruby before this became a concern". It's not really giving any new insight.
  - judofyr 5y ago
    It should be mentioned that their reasons were mainly developer convenience/productivity, and not “correctness”. I think people severely overrate the value of the language when it comes to avoiding bugs. We already know how to minimize bugs: Extensive testing regimes (automated, manual, or both) and a general focus on correctness over “shipping on an artificial deadline”.
    - nradov 5y ago
      Ironically, advocates of dynamic typing often claim that it improves developer convenience and productivity.
    - karmakaze 5y ago
      You can have something that aids convenience/productivity and not correctness. You can also have something that aids correctness that increases developer convenience/productivity. I treat static typing as the latter. Edit: Btw, the github.com/sorbet/sorbet project is really well run and surprisingly easy to get into. I've been drafting PRs. C++ is not nearly as rough as I remember from decades ago.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]

Modern Treasury is a Ruby on Rails shop I really wouldn't want to write a service that deals with money in an unsafe language. It's so easy to make a mistake in ruby there's no compiler to help you.

mflamespin 5y ago

There's lots of Java development that deals with money movement that is suspect. All languages and frameworks are just tools. It depends on how you use them. Compilers are no guarantee for correctness if how you're modeling types is improper.

ianpurton 5y ago
Well to me it's defence in depth. I've used Ruby in a cryptocurrency project and I've used Rust. I know there are no guarantees but I wouldn't go back to ruby. There are just too many times when the compiler catches something I missed.

quadrature 5y ago

It definitely a scary proposition. But it's worth mentioning that two of the world's biggest money moving platforms (Stripe and Shopify) are written in ruby.

valenterry 5y ago
Stripe decided to write a type checker for it though, probably for good reasons: https://sorbet.org/ https://sorbet.org/
- quadrature 5y ago
  Yup, also being used at Shopify. Types are awesome, but these companies got very far by betting big on the productivity of ruby before this became a concern.
  - valenterry 5y ago
    Not claiming that ruby isn't productive, but I could as well rephrase that into "these companies got very far despite the lack of productivity of ruby before this became a concern". It's not really giving any new insight.
- judofyr 5y ago
  It should be mentioned that their reasons were mainly developer convenience/productivity, and not “correctness”. I think people severely overrate the value of the language when it comes to avoiding bugs. We already know how to minimize bugs: Extensive testing regimes (automated, manual, or both) and a general focus on correctness over “shipping on an artificial deadline”.
  - nradov 5y ago
    Ironically, advocates of dynamic typing often claim that it improves developer convenience and productivity.
  - karmakaze 5y ago
    You can have something that aids convenience/productivity and not correctness. You can also have something that aids correctness that increases developer convenience/productivity. I treat static typing as the latter. Edit: Btw, the github.com/sorbet/sorbet project is really well run and surprisingly easy to get into. I've been drafting PRs. C++ is not nearly as rough as I remember from decades ago.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]