-
I had written a code contracts library for Ruby about 10 years ago [1]. I stopped working on it, mainly because it only provided runtime type checking, and I wanted static type checking. Nowadays my main language is typescript. I miss ruby, but can't give up the static typing that typescript provides. I really wish Ruby had a type system with the same level of support. VSCode has phenomenal TS support, and there's a community adding types to projects [2]. This is something I'd like for Ruby also.
> An integral part of this informality is relying on Matz’s taste and intuition for everything that affects the language’s core.
I think a more defined process would mean a better future for Ruby and Ruby developers.
- [1] https://github.com/egonschiele/contracts.ruby
- [2] https://github.com/DefinitelyTyped/DefinitelyTyped
-
InfluxDB
InfluxDB – Built for High-Performance Time Series Workloads. InfluxDB 3 OSS is now GA. Transform, enrich, and act on time series data directly in the database. Automate critical tasks and eliminate the need to move data externally. Download now.
-
-
> For myself, I'm fine with the typing being in a separate .rbs file
We type[0] by having one separate .rbs file per .rb file. Works really well with an editor's vertical splits: type outline on one side, code on the other. That, or use something like vim-projectionist[1].
[0]: (WIP: there's a huge codebase to type, but we're progressively getting there) https://github.com/DataDog/dd-trace-rb/tree/master/sig
[1]: https://github.com/tpope/vim-projectionist
-
> For myself, I'm fine with the typing being in a separate .rbs file
We type[0] by having one separate .rbs file per .rb file. Works really well with an editor's vertical splits: type outline on one side, code on the other. That, or use something like vim-projectionist[1].
[0]: (WIP: there's a huge codebase to type, but we're progressively getting there) https://github.com/DataDog/dd-trace-rb/tree/master/sig
[1]: https://github.com/tpope/vim-projectionist
