←back to thread

RBS, Ruby’s new type signature language

(developer.squareup.com)
511 points mootrichard | 1 comments | 29 Jul 20 18:04 UTC | HN request time: 0.235s | source
Show context
setpatchaddress ◴[29 Jul 20 20:01 UTC] No.23990944[source]▶
I'm really puzzled by the decision to use a separate file for this. The stated justification ("it doesn't require changing Ruby code") doesn't make sense, and my personal experience with languages with external type specifications is strongly negative. It's an unbelievable pain to keep multiple interface files in sync over time.

`.h` files are not something to emulate! External interfaces should be generated by tools where needed.

replies(5): >>23991001 #>>23991013 #>>23991258 #>>23991289 #>>23994203 #
1. fasterpython ◴[29 Jul 20 20:07 UTC] No.23991001[source]▶
Yeah I agree with this. They cite the typescript compiler, which in addition to supporting .d.ts files also supports compiling regular JS in additon to separate TS files in the same project. I think this would have been a better approach for backward compat as well, so that users could upgrade to versions szupporting static typing and incrementally change projects one file at a time (leaving existing code intact).