1. 22
  1. 4

    I’m a long time ruby user and use it currently where I work. I also know a number of static languages, and appreciate the benefits of type safety. That said, back porting optional types to ruby just feels against the grain. If I need types, I’ll use another language that was built for them. If I’m using ruby, I’ll enjoy not having to worry about that particular ceremony.

    1. 3

      RBS is intended to be generated by tooling, the whole point of storing them in a separate file is to avoid manual annotation.

      1. 2

        I like that they won’t clutter the main source files, but in the demos I’ve seen (eg this JetBrains video on them), the tooling generates them, but you still have to go through and fill in the intended types.

      2. 2

        What do you mean by writing about the ceremony? You’re not forced to use them. And when you do want to run a check, you can save yourself some runtime errors. Where do you see the downside to this?

        1. 2

          See my reply here. I don’t think there’s a downside to having the option – it’s just something I don’t see myself using in most places where I want to use ruby. But I might…

          1. 2

            I think the use case is adding it to legacy ruby code