3 ms·
We're using it (300 engineers, 50k .rb files). It sucks, like everything else related to Ruby. It's ugly and hard to read. It would be better to use a real lang
by chihuahua 3y ago
We're using it (300 engineers, 50k .rb files). It sucks, like everything else related to Ruby. It's ugly and hard to read. It would be better to use a real language that has types built in.
When you're hacking together an MVP as quickly as possible, it may seem like a brilliant idea to not have types. Then you have a real company and a larger team and you find out that not having types causes lots of problems. Then you graft an ugly hack like Sorbet onto your code base. It's more work and more error-prone than having a real language with types.
The official Ruby motto should be "penny-wise, pound foolish". Everything about the language is a disadvantage when you have a large code base.
- pftg 3y ago> find out that not having types causes lots of problems Yeah, it's hard to find a decent team, so we work with less experienced guys who need a lot of safeguards like static types ;) Ruby solves this problem: you do not need big teams, so you are more comfortable finding better developers. Ruby allows to reduce team 5x.