4 ms·
DHH has no say in Ruby development. That being said, Matz also isn't a fan of static typing. Static type annotations exist in the form of RBS, but no one that
by dismalaf 2y ago
DHH has no say in Ruby development.
That being said, Matz also isn't a fan of static typing. Static type annotations exist in the form of RBS, but no one that matters in the Ruby eco-system is pushing static type annotations in .rb files themselves.
Also, after seeing TypeScript, I'm very happy about that.
- nona 2y agohttps://github.com/soutaro/rbs-inline https://github.com/soutaro/rbs-inline I myself am unsure where I stand on RBS. I wouldn't mind more use of it in my gem dependencies, but would probably not like it if it was enforced everywhere. For now I'll stick with improving my test/spec-writing skills, and maybe some runtime type checking like https://literal.fun/ https://literal.fun/
- dismalaf 2y agoI think RBS is a decent tool, I don't mind it as long as it never becomes a requirement for anything. I hate the trend of statically typed dynamic languages because it's all of the pain without the main benefit (native speed).