|
|
|
|
|
by usernamed7
171 days ago
|
|
hey this is pretty cool! very interesting concept to transpile to rbs. in most of my coding career (rails) i have not needed types. But when i was working on a large codebase with many teams, the lack of types was a recurring issue. now i work in a SOA and face different coupling challenges. But i much prefer this syntax to what RBS required. |
|