having spent a day experimenting with it, I don't think sorbet is ready for production. I think it has potential but there are a lot of open pitfalls that would need to be ironed out before I could recommend it
Show this thread
-
I was interested in it because retrofitting type systems onto untyped languages is an interesting problem, but compared to e.g. typescript it has a long way to go in terms of correctness
Show this thread
Personally I think it's got a big issue in terms of priorities as well. They've made it clear that they do not want to support all Ruby code, or even all common conventions -- but that folks should write a certain way to use Sorbet.
-
-
In contrast to TypeScript, which actively prioritizes features in order to let folks represent what they're already writing in its type system
-
Yup, my personal nit is that it doesn’t support defining a Shape (their typed hash, essentially) with optional key/value pairs, which makes it really annoying to type methods with an options hash parameter.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
This, a lot of the conversations I've had with their team go like "we write ruby like x at stripe, sorbet works with ruby written like x".
-
I would like to know how it is helping them ergonomically, b/c my experience is I've just run it over a 6,000 line ruby gem and have not found any bugs as a result
End of conversation
New conversation -
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.