The problem (as TFA points out) is that most of the available options (including "a TS-like syntax") are already valid Ruby code. I do agree with your first po

The problem (as TFA points out) is that most of the available options (including "a TS-like syntax") are already valid Ruby code. I do agree with your first point that the lack of adoption of Sorbet among library maintainers negates some of the benefit of the type system (compared to TS). Seeing all those `T.untyped`'s in generated RBI files is a little scary :D.