[zingar]

I don’t think the existence of a library to do something is evidence of the community shifting. For me the complete absence of types from any Ruby I see IRL or in examples from conference talks, readmes etc is evidence that the community is uninterested despite tons of effort from big players.

[sethhochberg]

I think there's some real sample bias in that definition of "the community" though, because people who are passionate Ruby programmers giving conference talks, running meetups, etc are often a distinctly different group than the regular-old programmers making business software go 'round every day. The big players writing tools for bringing various flavors of type safety into Ruby are doing it because they're experiencing the pain of having lots of programmers working on large, complex software over years-long periods with the tools that Ruby gives you out of the box. They often employ some of those community fixtures, but thats not the majority of an engineering organization.

The reality is that there certainly are enthusiast programmers who can thrive with the lightweight elegance of stock Ruby, but most people writing code professionally aren't enthusiast programmers under ideal conditions. Everything is always a little more distracted, a little less well-defined, and a little more coupled to legacy than anyone would want. And those are the conditions where I want my tools working as hard as possible, automatically, for me / my teams.

[zingar]

I’ve work as a consultant for a few different tier 2 Ruby organizations and many startups myself and haven’t seen any typing in production. I suppose reconciling our different experience requires data about whether “most” Ruby programmers are at the giants or are spread out over the long tail of startups and scale-ups.