proposal-type-annotations VS sorbet

That proposal is not fully compatible with Typescript: https://github.com/tc39/proposal-type-annotations?tab=readme...

They held a meeting a few months ago so it's alive but probably still years away.

https://github.com/tc39/proposal-type-annotations/issues/184

I particularly like this thread in the TC39 types proposal. TypeScript IS a development trojan horse and locks you into the Microsoft Way of being a JS developer.

Edit: There is a proposal to extend JavaScript with type annotations, which would allow ("a reasonably large subset") of TypeScript to run directly in the browser. Yay!

https://github.com/tc39/proposal-type-annotations

More importantly, TypeScript typically commits to build things into itself when the proposal in JavaScript reaches Stage 3. The pattern matching proposal in JavaScript is Stage 1, but depends on many other proposals as well that may or may not need to be at Stage 3 as well for it to work. This particular proposal is interested on pattern matching on JavaScript Objects and other primitives, just like Python does with it’s native primitives. These are also dynamic types which helps in some areas, but makes it harder than others. Additionally, the JavaScript type annotations proposal needs to possibly account for this. So it’s going to be awhile. Like many years.

this is exactly what I want from the _Types as Comments_ proposal[0] as I think it's the only way that types can feasibly become part of the language. It's hard to imagine how all of the concepts TS introduces via special syntax can be covered otherwise.

[0] https://tc39.es/proposal-type-annotations

Crossing my fingers that the proposal for allowing (browser-ignored) type annotations in javascript progresses: https://tc39.es/proposal-type-annotations/

Between that, HTTP2/3 and ES modules many of the downsides for building apps with no compile step are almost completely mitigated.

JSDoc can get you pretty far, but it can be clumsy sometimes. There’s a [TC39 proposal](https://github.com/tc39/proposal-type-annotations) to allow types to live in JS code and be treated as comments (similar with Python types today)

Not part of the official language spec, but Ruby has Sorbet, from a company who employs Ruby core contributors and helped with the recently released JIT additions to the language, amount countless other contributions over the last couple decades.

https://sorbet.org/

First let's introduce the tool: Sorbet is a gem developed by Stripe that aims to bring type notation syntax and type checking support for the Ruby ecosystem by utilizing the "Gradual typing" philosophy, it also provide type generation from YARD comments via the tapioca gem, allowing to grow alongside the already built Ruby codebase.

We have hundreds of thousands of lines of ruby code spanning many services / monoliths. Even now I find it somewhat annoying to open a controller / component that is basically an empty class def but somehow executes a bunch of complex stuff via mixins, monkey patches etc, and you have to figure out how.

We are turning to https://sorbet.org/ to reign in the madness. I'm keen to know if others are doing the same, and how they are finding it (pros and cons)

According to https://sorbet.org/ , the vast majority of code at Stripe is written in ruby.

Caso de Stripe, que tuvo que inventar Sorbet para tener type checking en ruby.

> I guess what I'm asking is: do you see a future where there is more explicit control afforded to people who want to pick their own tradeoffs without resorting to writing everything performance-sensitive in extensions written in C/Rust/whatever?

An approach exists already in the present, and it's Stripe's Sorbet AOT compiler (https://github.com/sorbet/sorbet/tree/master/compiler).

That's incorrect. You may be thinking of Stripe, and AFAICT it's not very actively developed anymore: https://github.com/sorbet/sorbet/commits/master/compiler