←back to thread

511 points mootrichard | 2 comments | | HN request time: 0.414s | source
Show context
setpatchaddress ◴[] 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 #
heavenlyblue ◴[] No.23991013[source]
How do you even type local variables?
replies(2): >>23991291 #>>23991344 #
RangerScience ◴[] No.23991291[source]
Why would you need to?

Edit: Like, seriously. Either the local var is populated by something coming in externally (which is then typable) or, unless your code is too complex / large, it should be easy to see everywhere it's used, and then why would you need that additional typing info?

replies(4): >>23991692 #>>23991831 #>>23991884 #>>23992240 #
amw-zero ◴[] No.23991884[source]
Because when you see the benefit of type annotations (I’m not saying that’s objective, just if you do go that route) you want to add type information to as much as possible. Leaving them off because you want to is one thing. Not being able to is an unnecessary limitation.
replies(1): >>23993492 #
1. kgilpin ◴[] No.23993492[source]
The point is that the type of a local variable can almost always be inferred based on what it’s assigned to.
replies(1): >>24010078 #
2. amw-zero ◴[] No.24010078[source]
While that’s true, that’s not what I’m talking about. I’m talking about the communicative benefit of type annotations. If you get the benefit from seeing the types, you don’t want them to be inferred. You use them as a reading tool.