`.h` files are not something to emulate! External interfaces should be generated by tools where needed.
`.h` files are not something to emulate! External interfaces should be generated by tools where needed.
Here's a full example, complete with a typo, based on the example in the blog post: https://bit.ly/3hMEMSp
Here's a truncated excerpt to get the basic idea across:
# typed: true
class Merchant
extend T::Sig
sig {returns(String)}
attr_reader :name
sig {returns(T::Array[Employee])}
attr_reader :employees
sig {params(token: String, name: String).void}
def initialize(token, name)
@token = token
@name = name
end
end
Disclaimer, I used Sorbet while I was an employee at Stripe. I found it to be a terrific typechecker. It's also just absurdly fast (most of the time).If the author thinks that's the biggest benefit, I'm inclined to think the ruby community doesn't seem to have enough eyes these days in the core development.
Edit: Like, seriously. Either the local var is populated by something coming in externally (which is then typable) or, unless your code is too complex / large, it should be easy to see everywhere it's used, and then why would you need that additional typing info?
def foo
username = T.let("heavenlyblue", String)
end
It's a little clunky but gets the job done, and in practice it's quite rare that you need to type a local variable.However, more important to have in the body of a program is tools for casting and asserting types, like these:
T.assert_type(foo, String)
T.cast(foo, String)
T.must(foo) # assures the compiler foo is not nil
T.unsafe(foo) # the equivalent of a TS `any` cast
Docs at https://sorbet.org/docs/type-assertionsI'm not sure how tools that use RBS without inline syntax will handle these situations, but to be honest I expect the community to adopt Sorbet in practice anyway. It's very fast and battle-hardened in production at Stripe and several other large companies.
Disclaimer, again: former Stripe employee.
Disclaimer: Working at Square, have friends at Stripe, enjoy both type checkers.
class Merchant
attr_reader token: String
attr_reader name: String
attr_reader employees: Array[Employee]
def initialize(token: String, name: String) -> void
# actual method body
end
def each_employee: () { (Employee) -> void } -> void
| () -> Enumerator[Employee, void]
# actual implementation body
end
end
It seems like they are trying to support existing competing work... but i'm not sure any ruby users actually want that. I prefer this .rbs to sorbet all around, and would prefer it inline.The Ruby syntax is too complicated to allow for changes like this to be backwards-compatible.
For example, `attr_reader token: String` is valid ruby today – that's the same as `attr_reader(:token => String)` which somebody might be doing in the wild, since you can override `def self.attr_reader`.
Similarly, `def initialize(token: String` clashes with the definition of keyword arguments.
I am not able to spin that into "And besides it's better to force it to be in two files anyway!", I don't think it is, but I guess it's not so easy to do different.
A classic example of where I might have an inline type annotation in Rust is when I'm doing a non-trivial chain of Future/Result combinators in the middle of a function. It doesn't take much code for your understanding to desync from reality. Annotating "Result<String, IOError>" inline both documents to others what this intermediate value is but also creates better, local errors as the chain is modified.
Complex stuff does generally get factored out into functions, but at the same time, it's nice when you're the one who decides when it makes sense to extract code rather than a limitation of the typing syntax. Those things don't always line up.
I dunno. Massive breakages of backward compatibility in an established language may not be better than that.
The reasoning is here: https://www.artima.com/forums/flat.jsp?forum=106&thread=1559...
Mind you, if we could write tests in .rbs then I guess .rbs could form the basis of a new ruby syntax without breaking compatibility with old code in .rb files.
module T
module Sig
def sig *args
end
end
# You'd need to stub out a few more things here.
end
begin
require 'sorbet-runtime'
rescue LoadError
end
Basically as far as what I can tell from just having briefly looked at Sorbet, you could quite easily stub out the bare minimum to allow people to choose whether to pull in the full thing or not. It'd be nice if they provided a gem that did that.You can configure things like this globally and/or for each method call.
Eg;
# turn off all runtime checks
T::Configuration.default_checked_level = :never
# turn off runtime checks for one method
sig {returns(String).checked(:never)}
def foo; :wont-raise; end
Docs are here: https://sorbet.org/docs/runtime#runtime-checked-sigsPersonally if I were authoring a gem I'd leave the runtime checks on except in hot paths, so my users get quick feedback when they pass the wrong thing.
In any case, the library author can get the benefits of static and runtime typing, and their users will get nice static typing if they use sorbet. Users also get nice runtime typing for the library if the author chooses to leave it on for them. The overhead is usually small.