undefined | Better HN

0 pointsazuanrb4mo ago0 comments

Part of it is because Ruby imo, have a very nice syntax. With type annotation, it's becoming "ugly", a lot more verbose. It's no longer English-like. I do agree type have some advantages, but we need to get the DX right.

I've been using Ruby for more than 10 years now, and I only started using LSP recently. To me it's a nice addition but I can live without it. Type is just one of the tools, not the only one imo. Not trying to sound negative but type is becoming more like a hammer analogy nowadays.

And it's not limited to Ruby. Javascript, Python, all similar languages. Not everyone is a fan of type. We won't reach consensus imo and that's ok.

0 comments

clanky4mo ago

> With type annotation, it's becoming "ugly", a lot more verbose. It's no longer English-like.

In our codebase that uses Sorbet I find this is really only true at function boundaries. Within a function it is pretty rare that anything needs to be spelled out with inline annotations to satisfy the compiler.

codesnik4mo ago

This is my biggest irk about Sorbet: because its signatures are wordy and because it can't infer the generic type of a private method, it slightly pushes you towards NOT extracting helper methods if they are going to be 2-5 lines. With Sorbet annotation, it'd easily become 10 lines. So it pushes towards bigger methods, and those are not always readable.

If only private methods would be allowed not having typing at all (with a promise of not being used in subclasses, for example), and Sorbet would be used mostly on the public surface of classes, it'd be much more tolerable for me.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse

0 comments

clanky4mo ago

> With type annotation, it's becoming "ugly", a lot more verbose. It's no longer English-like.

codesnik4mo ago

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse