←back to thread

511 points mootrichard | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0.206s | source
Show context
muglug ◴[] No.23990520[source]
Can someone explain why the types cannot live in Ruby code itself (after an appropriate version bump)?

Python 3 incorporated types into the language itself, in a similar way (though non-reified) to PHP. This seems much easier to deal with than requiring two files (.rb and .rbs) to describe a single data structure.

replies(4): >>23990918 #>>23990947 #>>23991201 #>>23991455 #
regularfry ◴[] No.23990947[source]
I can well imagine that it might be because ruby's formal syntax is already utterly bonkers, and the thought of adding types to it in any usable fashion gave someone a seizure.
replies(1): >>23991741 #
rudolph9 ◴[] No.23991741[source]
Haven't used ruby in years for the typical reasons people move away from it (performance, strong types, GVL, etc.) but syntax is #1 reason I like programming in Ruby. I did mostly ruby for about 5 years and really grew to love it! It may seem bonkers at first but quite enjoyable once you understand it. Now nearly 4 years later of mostly javascript, golang, python, haskell I still regularly stop and think to my self how much I miss ruby!
replies(3): >>23991854 #>>23991856 #>>23991913 #
1. regularfry ◴[] No.23991854[source]
As an end user, it's amazing. I do have sympathy for the implementers, though.