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 -
What do you want from a type system ? Structural typing with inference at compile time could say "see, this code wont ever be reached"
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Structural typing would be weak at best in Ruby, given that methods are defined on objects so dynamically.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @sgrif @codefolio
But in Ruby, structural and nominal type are pretty much the same because most module/classes have 100+ methods
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes
The existence of singleton classes also makes nominal typing basically worthless in Ruby since an objects class doesn't enforce an interface
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.