undefined | Better HN

0 pointsjez2y ago0 comments

Sorbet is not feature complete, we are working on it every day!

I hear you on the verbosity of generic type declarations. It's something that I pushed hard for us to improve in the early phases of the project, but I was outvoted by other members of my team. But... at this point those members have all left the team and in the meantime we've heart actual users complain about the verbosity (not our own hypothetical "what if" complaints in the design phase) so I'm optimistic we'll be able to reduce generic type verbosity in the future. For example, a while back I did a prototype/experiment to drastically drop the verbosity of generic type annotations[1]. It's definitely on our radar.

Happy to chat more either on Sorbet's issue tracker or Slack group.

[1] https://github.com/sorbet/sorbet/pull/7322

0 comments

codesnik2y ago

That's actually reassuring to hear, thank you. I'll take a look on recent changes in sorbet, I don't even remember where I've seen that "feature complete" remark, maybe I'm just imagined it.

I'd love and use sorbet if it'd be truly an optional typing, I'd happily supply signatures to public interfaces of my classes, but only to them, as a documentation and a somewhat verifiable helper to LSP. Basically, what RBS should be doing. In my experience I rarely if ever make type-like errors in the code I produce, so sorbet just added a lot of chore and forced to dumb down my code significantly, just to be ingestable by sorbet. And worse of all, it added some false sense of security, because absense of sorbet errors didn't mean absense of type mismatches in many cases. But maybe some of those concerns are gone already.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse

0 comments

codesnik2y ago

That's actually reassuring to hear, thank you. I'll take a look on recent changes in sorbet, I don't even remember where I've seen that "feature complete" remark, maybe I'm just imagined it.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse