←back to thread

511 points mootrichard | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0s | source
Show context
freedomben ◴[] 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 ◴[] 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 #
wolfadex ◴[] No.23991625[source]
Type annotations aren't inline in all languages. If you're writing Haskell or Elm, as a few examples, then you get static types without having to write them out and if you do write them out they sit above the function that uses them.
replies(1): >>23992289 #
1. ric2b ◴[] No.23992289[source]
I don't think anyone is disappointed that it isn't literally inline, the problem is that it's in separate files.