[gorgoiler]

It feels like RBS is for library writers, so that they can ship type information to help the consumers of their library. It’s not really aimed at the consumers themselves — the long tail of casual Ruby hackers like me.

If RBS was for end users, adding types inline with the source code would make more sense compared to the RBS approach: keeping the source file and typedef file in sync.

That might actually be a pretty smart move. At first it seemed inconvenient to have to maintain a separate file for the type information, but maybe this focus on type-checking being made easy for the 90% of us who hack scripts is a much smarter one.

[schneems]

I don’t think anyone expects you to maintain two files. The idea is that RBS is an interface that is tooling agnostic. The idea is to have tooling (sorbet, etc.) generate those files for you.