Will Crichton

Since the major benefit of this feature is readability, it pays off the most when it's ubiquitous. So leaving it up to individual API devs to use records or not won't have the same systemic effects.

This was how you do things in ruby- there's special syntax for using record arguments as if they were named arguments. But @jplubin pointed out to me that records don't curry like named arguments can- that's enough of an argument for me!

is this like Python's "splat" operator for dictionaries, **? (I know 0 Ruby so just trying to relate to what I know.) def foo(arg1, arg2): ... rec = {"arg1": 42, "arg2": 13} foo(**rec)

This but in reverse: you can define def foo(args) args[:arg1] ... args[:arg2] ... and then call foo(arg1: 3, arg2: "asdf") which gets desugared to foo({:arg1 => 3, :arg2 => "asdf"})

wat

I... dislike this very very much, I'm sorry

But this is the official ruby way, blessed by matz, and optimized for developer enjoyment how can you possibly not like it?

you're right, I was hasty in my reply and upon further reflection I must admit Ruby as the Language Supreme™