3 ms·
> Why one would try to make ruby "look like" statically typed language? It violates the idea of ruby, which dynamically typed language. People said the exact s
by johnfn 1y ago
> Why one would try to make ruby "look like" statically typed language? It violates the idea of ruby, which dynamically typed language.
People said the exact same things when Typescript was first being released. I think history has proven all those people decisively wrong. I think you'd need a compelling reason that Ruby has some je ne sais quoi that Javascript doesn't in order to support your point.
- airstrike 1y agoTypescript's success has much more to do with JavaScript being the only choice we have in the browser than it has to do with particular programming language design that we must seek to replicate.
- monooso 1y agoPlenty of people dislike TypeScript, and don't feel the supposed benefits outweigh the costs.
- zhisme 1y agoThe thing is I don't want ruby to meet the fate of javascript. Javascript community is much bigger than ruby will ever be. They had to manage so many people writing too many code, and invented tool for them so they can contribute without making them learn completely new programming language. Easier to jump in. And I should mention typescript types is much better than what we have in rbs/sorbet. They have types inside language, without annotation like what we have separate sig DSL in ruby. We should invent new programming language typed_ruby and give him separate life, and then history will prove us whether it should have been implemented in the first place. But not try to push it into stdlib and persuade everyone else that it is the right way to go.