.@tomstuart .@bascule I am not sure if soft typing or gradual typing is the right term. In anyway, types should be structural, not nominal.
-
-
Replying to @yukihiro_matz
@yukihiro_matz@tomstuart@bascule What about just syntax and a protocol for checking? https://gist.github.com/evanphx/ef17026666dc314bdf85 …2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @evanphx
@evanphx@yukihiro_matz@bascule I think it’d be a missed opportunity to not do the checking statically. If Flow can do it then so can we.1 reply 1 retweet 2 likes -
Replying to @tomstuart
@tomstuart@yukihiro_matz@bascule Any info on Flow?3 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @evanphx
@evanphx@yukihiro_matz@bascule http://flowtype.org/ . Have a play with it — it works surprisingly well.1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @tomstuart
@tomstuart@yukihiro_matz@bascule A quick glance and I doubt the technique works with Ruby. They depend lexically scoped func's to start.1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @evanphx
@evanphx@yukihiro_matz@bascule I disagree, but who really knows? This is why we need to try something concrete.1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @tomstuart
@tomstuart@yukihiro_matz@bascule The place to start in that thinking is why the other attempts at applying type inference to ruby failed.1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @evanphx
@evanphx@yukihiro_matz@bascule That certainly sounds like a reasonable first step, but someone somewhere has to actually do it.1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
@tomstuart @evanphx @yukihiro_matz I'm a bit late to the party. Wasn't necessarily suggesting a Flow-like type system, just food for thought
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.