undefined | Better HN

0 pointsch4s39mo ago0 comments

Maybe, the cycle has happened before and maybe come back around again. Dynamic typing is really nice when most of your data looks like bags of strings. Compilers and tools just don’t add a lot when you’re passing around glorified blobs of stringy json-like stuff. Type gymnastics can eat a lot of time where you could otherwise be shipping something useful.

0 comments

riffraff9mo ago

I would argue when you're passing around stringy JSON-like thingies is when typing is most useful :)

You're not going to misuse an API that takes a Person or Cart, but mixing up two hashes cause you used two different strings as keys can happen easily.

(I do think dynamic typing is mostly fine, but I do wish ruby had optional static typing with some nice syntax instead of RBS)

ch4s3OP9mo ago

> You're not going to misuse an API that takes a Person or Cart, but mixing up two hashes cause you used two different strings as keys can happen easily.

This is more or less trivial to catch and fix, I'm just not sure a type system is worth it's weight for that kind of case.

Lio9mo ago

It’s on the way thankfully.

I’m really excited about Sorbet getting behind the new RBS-inline comment syntax and the prospect of both runtime and static analysis as optional tools when needed.

jaredsohn9mo ago

I haven't really felt a need for static typing in my job's Rails app (small team, and I've been working in this codebase a really long time) but I think LLMs can be a huge help for automating the type gymnastics.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse