[lolinder]

I'm a professional developer with 20 years of experience and I wouldn't dream of starting a new side project—even with myself as the only developer—without types.

I've learned by hard experience that past me was an idiot and future me is clueless. Types are executable documentation that I can leave behind for future me so that future me can get instantaneous feedback while refactoring the project that past me wrote.

[zhisme]

Any reason you stick to ruby? Why not use any statically typed language which offers this feature out of the box? We don't argue against typing. We argue about typing like it is done in ruby rbs/sorbet.

[lolinder]

I don't use Ruby. I would if it had types. My language of choice right now is TypeScript because it has the best balance of types and dynamism.

[dismalaf]

So you're forming an opinion without trying it?

This is just a rehash of the discussions people were having about Smalltalk/Lisp 20 years ago... All the Java/C++ IDE people who were wondering how people survived without those tools, forgetting that Smalltalk/Lisp have live-coding, REPLs, and their own tools. Ruby is the same, the terseness + REPL/live-coding makes it easy to be productive and write bug-free code.

I know I'm far, far more productive in Ruby versus, say, C++ or Odin (my newest hobby language).