←back to thread

RBS, Ruby’s new type signature language

(developer.squareup.com)
511 points mootrichard | 2 comments | 29 Jul 20 18:04 UTC | HN request time: 0s | source
Show context
castwide ◴[30 Jul 20 01:52 UTC] No.23993524[source]▶
I'm still trying to make sense of this announcement. With a lack of type annotation in the Ruby core, I chose to build off YARD to make gradual type safety work. Now I don't know if there will be a standard that supports type safety or if I should continue down the path I'm already following. Help me, Ruby core developers. You're my only hope.

(edit: I should have explained that I'm talking about the type checking features I'm developing in Solargraph: https://solargraph.org/guides/type-checking)

replies(3): >>23994902 #>>23994992 #>>23995631 #
1. transfire ◴[30 Jul 20 07:41 UTC] No.23995631[source]▶
I hear you. It occurred to me that Ruby could have chosen to innovate with something like a Semantic TomDoc. To choose a separate file based approach seems like a step backward. At the very least it could have been module based. But Matz is a C coder -- not a Ruby coder. So it doesn't necessarily surprise me.

It's sad though. Since poor design of Refinements, C transpiling for 3x project, and now this, I am less and less inclined to continue using Ruby. I miss some of the dynamics but I find myself using Crystal instead.

(Honestly, if any one figured out a way to supplement Crystal with dynamic behavior for those features that a static language can't offer, Ruby would be done.)

replies(1): >>23996381 #
2. d3nj4l ◴[30 Jul 20 10:05 UTC] No.23996381[source]▶
As soon as I feel comfortable maintaining a Crystal server in production I think I'll switch to it. Last I tried it, things broke and shards required some effort to maintain every version update. I'm eagerly looking forward to their 1.0 and hoping they stabilize a lot more.