rbs VS rubocop

I saw no mention of RBS+Steep, the latter providing a LSP. I use it a lot and very much like it, although it's still young and needs love, but it's making good, steady progress! I've been very pleasantly surprised by some of the crazy things Steep can catch, completely statically!

You appear to be working on projects with Sorbet (which I tried to like but found it fell short in practice, notably outside of the app use case i.e it's mostly useless for gems) so it may be a tall order to try on those. Maybe you can give RBS+Steep a shot on some small project?

RBS: https://github.com/ruby/rbs

RBS collection (for those gems that don't ship RBS signatures in `sig`, integrates with bundler): https://github.com/ruby/gem_rbs_collection

Steep: https://github.com/soutaro/steep

VS Code: https://github.com/soutaro/steep-vscode

Sublime Text: https://github.com/sublimelsp/LSP

Vim (I'm working on it): https://github.com/dense-analysis/ale/pull/4671

I don't know what you mean by "Static typing is not webscale".

> https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39159481

Bugs exist in all code written in all programming languages and you will find bugs in programs written in statically typed languages too as you know. Programming languages are rarely chosen for the absense of bugs alone though or we'd all be using SPARK Ada or something.

> spitting out code as fast as your keyboard works, or is is not having features do weirdo things

This is a straw man. No-one has suggested that "spitting out code as fast as your keyboard works" is what Rails allows you to do, or that Ruby code results in features that "do weirdo things".

In reality engineer productivity is important and Rails enables it in a web environment.

> I have more than once tried to contribute fixes to GitLab's codebase, and every time I open the thing in RubyMine it hurpdurps having no earthly idea where symbols come from or what completions are legal in any given context.

Yes, I prefer writing statically typed languages and I would /greatly/ prefer Ruby to be statically typed for a number of reasons, but it will likely never be so in a way I consider to be usable (see https://github.com/ruby/rbs). Not being able to definitively tell what a method returns or where one is defined is a total PITA, but it's one of the array of up and downsides to Ruby, with each language having a different set.

> I trust JetBrains analysis deeply, so if they can't deduce what's going on, then it must take an impressive amount of glucose to memorize every single surface area one needs to implement a feature.

You don't need to know how all of Rails works to write a Rails app, as I'm sure you know, so this seems like another mis-representation of the truth, just as you don't need to know how the compiler or CPUs work to do a lot of (most?) programming.

> That or, hear me out, maybe "it works on my machine" is a close to correct as the language is going to get without explicit type hints as a pseudo static typing

You seem to be suggesting that Ruby on Rails applications behave unpredictably on a machine to machine basis but that's not really how Ruby works in practice, or matching on my experience.

Are you familiar with rbs (https://github.com/ruby/rbs)? If so, what issues do you see with using that over TypeScript?

Ruby does have optional type annotations, if you want them:

https://github.com/ruby/rbs

Is anyone using RBS? Or, is it still half-baked? I haven't seen any recent posts about it this year. Though, I see the repo has some recent activity.

Currently rbs collection resolves stdlib dependencies, but rbs -r LIB option doesn't resolve them unfortunately. For instance, logger depends on monitor, but rbs -r logger doesn't load monitor.

Here is link number 1 - Previous text "RBS"

Partial clone reduces the impact, but it just procrastinates the problems.

gem "rubocop" - https://github.com/rubocop/rubocop | Set up code guidelines for your dev team, I recommend using whatever Standard recommends.

I believe if you use the `||` operator instead of `or`, then things just work out fine. I agree it is really annoying. But I am pretty sure if you use a tool like RuboCop https://github.com/rubocop/rubocop (a static code analysis tool) then it will catch bugs like this. Note that I am not recommending Ruby. But in my experience if you want to work with a language and it has a community style guide and a linter that enforces it, it will save me some heartache.

Adopt some sort of consistent formatting. Your top-level module starts off indented, seems like wasted space. May I suggest RuboCop?

By default, out of the box, RuboCop comes with a default set of pre-configured rules. The documentation will tell you Rubocop's default rules.

RuboCop is a Ruby static code analyzer (a.k.a. linter) and code formatter. Out of the box it will enforce many of the guidelines outlined in the community Ruby Style Guide. Apart from reporting the problems discovered in your code, RuboCop can also automatically fix many of them for you.

But I will encourage you to adopt Rubocop to enforce the style you want, so that if others want to contribute, they can write with spaces and then run rubocop -a and end up with the styling you prefer. Tabs indentation support was added a couple of years back: https://github.com/rubocop/rubocop/pull/7867

In my last job I encountered my first Rails codebase ever (mostly REST APIs but a few server-rendered views as well). After the initial chaotic impression of the codebase (it was a startup after all) with all the Rails magic on top, I really fell in love with the framework after a more experienced Rails dev introduced a few key conventions and helpful libraries to the codebase.

Out of those, I’d at least add the RuboCop [1] linter and the BetterSpecs [2] guidelines to this list. Both helped tremendously in eliminating bikeshedding in the team and freeing up brainpower to solve actual problems. The first one helped me learn intricacies of Ruby bit by bit right in my IDE and the latter guided us to write tests in a style that’s easy to maintain and trust.

[1] https://github.com/rubocop/rubocop

[2] https://www.betterspecs.org/

RuboCop had a setting for this but it was removed for Ruby 3 because there are valid reasons to pass a hash into a method, and linting it might break code. Here is the issue referencing the commits where it was removed, if you ever need to do this again you could just find an earlier commit.