It's frustrating that the number one reason people want to add type checking to Ruby is basically "everyone else is doing it".
-
Show this thread
-
This is not to say there are no good reasons. But there’s a lot of cargo cult and me-too going on.
2 replies 1 retweet 3 likesShow this thread -
Replying to @nateberkopec
Yeah. I feel like we could improve the static type proposals a lot if we had a coherent "why".
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @codefolio @nateberkopec
Like, if we did then the right answer might not even involve static typing.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @codefolio @nateberkopec
I suspect any static type system we could successfully add to Ruby wouldn't do anything I want from a type system
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Which one you would like ? If there is one
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
Structural typing at a bare minimum, preferably something that helps separate implementation from data as well (e.g. typeclass polymorphism)
5:28 AM - 24 Oct 2017
0 replies
0 retweets
1 like
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.