←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: 0s | source
Show context
freedomben ◴[29 Jul 20 19:31 UTC] No.23990680[source]▶
I'm not thrilled about the separate files with the type information but I completely understand why they did it, and if it were my choice I might make the same one.

I don't like the comparison with TypeScript `.d.ts` files however, because TS still lets you do types inline in the code. I haven't seen it mentioned anywhere that this won't be supported by Ruby 3.

Does anybody know if Ruby 3 will also support inline type information or will the header RBS files be required?

replies(3): >>23990915 #>>23991508 #>>23992127 #
amw-zero ◴[29 Jul 20 19:59 UTC] No.23990915[source]▶
I much prefer separate files for type declarations. Or at least the ability to define them separately. Type annotation takes away from readability. I like keeping the types and code separate.
replies(4): >>23990990 #>>23991109 #>>23991234 #>>23991625 #
1. untog ◴[29 Jul 20 20:17 UTC] No.23991109[source]▶
> Type annotation takes away from readability.

I don't disagree, but I think it's a very minor issue given that it's trivial to use color to highlight code these days. By comparison having to switch between two files (and keep them in sync!) when making changes is a far bigger usability concern.