←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: 0.204s | 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 #
hombre_fatal ◴[29 Jul 20 20:07 UTC] No.23990990[source]▶
The upside of external files is pure incremental implementation that touches no other tooling and requires no buy-in.

I don't see how having to switch files to know that `input` is a `User` increases readability, though. It seems like straight-forward impl-simplicity trade-off, not one of user ergonomics.

replies(2): >>23991228 #>>23991261 #
1. mekster ◴[29 Jul 20 20:32 UTC] No.23991261[source]▶
That can be covered by the editor to give the user some hint by referencing the external file but for the user, having have to keep adding it on a separate file seems pretty annoying as you need to keep declarations synched in 2 files.

Also how do you type something in an inline function?