|
|
|
|
|
by codesnik
805 days 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. |
|