2 ms·
I do not like Sorbet, and I don't think ruby's type annotation is in a great spot. The claims of Sorbet to allow easy refactoring are just not there imo, and do
by ecshafer 4y ago
I do not like Sorbet, and I don't think ruby's type annotation is in a great spot. The claims of Sorbet to allow easy refactoring are just not there imo, and do not reach the level of Java. Sorbet if anything involves more time fighting sorbet, and you still rely on tests for validation. Steep looks better, but I think it needs to be brought in file.
Personally if we do bring types, I would like to see an optional typescript like definition
def foo(:String x) -> String
or similar.
- whakim 4y agoThe article does a good job explaining why Typescript-like type annotations won't work (unless you only allow them in method definitions): most TS-like syntax is already valid Ruby code in one way or another. That aside, I'm curious where specifically you found Sorbet lacking?