4 ms·

No, but gradual/optional typing did come after Ruby. Back in 2005, you could choose between static typing with type checking but lots of verbosity (e.g. Java "P

No, but gradual/optional typing did come after Ruby. Back in 2005, you could choose between static typing with type checking but lots of verbosity (e.g. Java "Point point = new Point();" or C++ "for (std::map<int, BlaBla>::iterator it = myMap.begin(); it != myMap.end(); it++)") or dynamic typing without type checking but also without the verbosity. Since optional typing, dynamically typed languages got the guarantees of type checking, and JavaScript/TypeScript and Python have embraced this. With type inferencing, statically typed languages lose their verbosity, and Java and C++ have embraced that (as have newer languages like Rust, Go, and Swift). It feels like Ruby hasn't progressed on this front...

JeremyNT 4y ago
Ruby does have optional type annotations, if you want them: https://github.com/ruby/rbs https://github.com/ruby/rbs
FpUser 4y ago
>"for (std::map<int, BlaBla>::iterator it = myMap.begin(); it != myMap.end(); it++)")" All you really needed is: for (auto it : myMap) and you still get compile type safety
- Yoric 4y ago
  Well, in 2005, you didn't.
  - FpUser 4y ago
    Well we are not discussing 2005 version of Ruby. Why limit C++ to that particular time?
    - Yoric 4y ago
      Well, the GP was very explicitly discussing the situation in 2005, which led to the then appeal of dynamic languages. Comparing with the situation in 2023 doesn't seem to contribute?
Yoric 4y ago
I'll pedantically remind the audience that type inference dates back to the 70s and has been present in the industry at least since the 90s. But in truth, you're right. Very few people know/cared about type inference at the time.
pantulis 4y ago
Isn't RBS for Ruby a way of having optional typing? (Not challenging here, honest question :P)
- Gigachad 4y ago
  I’m not aware of anyone using it, we evaluated it at work and decided it wasn’t worth using despite us making heavy use of TypeScript and Rust.
munificent 4y ago
> Since optional typing, dynamically typed languages got the guarantees of type checking Optional typing, at least in TypeScript, will not give you the guarantees of type checking. It finds many of your type errors, but not all of them because the type system is deliberately unsound.

JeremyNT 4y ago

Ruby does have optional type annotations, if you want them: https://github.com/ruby/rbs https://github.com/ruby/rbs

FpUser 4y ago

>"for (std::map<int, BlaBla>::iterator it = myMap.begin(); it != myMap.end(); it++)")" All you really needed is: for (auto it : myMap) and you still get compile type safety

Yoric 4y ago
Well, in 2005, you didn't.
- FpUser 4y ago
  Well we are not discussing 2005 version of Ruby. Why limit C++ to that particular time?
  - Yoric 4y ago
    Well, the GP was very explicitly discussing the situation in 2005, which led to the then appeal of dynamic languages. Comparing with the situation in 2023 doesn't seem to contribute?

Yoric 4y ago

I'll pedantically remind the audience that type inference dates back to the 70s and has been present in the industry at least since the 90s. But in truth, you're right. Very few people know/cared about type inference at the time.

pantulis 4y ago

Isn't RBS for Ruby a way of having optional typing? (Not challenging here, honest question :P)

Gigachad 4y ago
I’m not aware of anyone using it, we evaluated it at work and decided it wasn’t worth using despite us making heavy use of TypeScript and Rust.

munificent 4y ago

> Since optional typing, dynamically typed languages got the guarantees of type checking Optional typing, at least in TypeScript, will not give you the guarantees of type checking. It finds many of your type errors, but not all of them because the type system is deliberately unsound.