Hacker News Reader

I don't understand the change of the default block parameter name. It's already _1, _2, etc. Why create yet another, backward-incompatible way?

And still, they doom march forward with the fragmentation of rbs and sorbet/tapioca, rather than adopting in-band gradual typing like Python did.

I think the greater problem is Ruby appears to be developed by a nearly-closed small clique of people who refuse to listen to others or to reason.

View on HN

I agree that `it` is unnecessary, but I'm really confused by the push for a type system. It adds a lot of clutter to a language that optimizes for expressiveness. I would prefer to work in something like Go, which is designed to have types, rather than awkwardly patch them into Ruby.

Apples (dynamic language) vs. oranges (static languages). Python's gradual typing approach solved this problem similarly to TypeScript, which is the right way to do it: https://peps.python.org/pep-0483/

It may be less bad, but I don't think there's a right way to retroactively add a type system to a dynamic language. I generally like working in JavaScript, but I have no desire to ever see TypeScript again.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com