News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:Flow vs. Typescript by cageface on Monday June 06, 2016 @04:39AM (#11845393)
The learning curve on something like TS for people already conversant in JS is pretty shallow. I think the time invested learning it will pay for itself very quickly on any non-trival project.

I wish I had something similar for all the Ruby code I write.

Re:Flow vs. Typescript by RX14 on Monday June 06, 2016 @06:03AM (#11845611)
It's not exactly what you want, but if you want a statically typed ruby-like you should check out crystal (http://crystal-lang.org/)
Re:Flow vs. Typescript by cageface on Monday June 06, 2016 @09:30AM (#11846594)
Crystal looks interesting but I can't really migrate to a new language. Something that compiles down to plain Ruby would be great though.
Re:Flow vs. Typescript by mendelk on Monday June 06, 2016 @02:28PM (#11849042)
Not sure if this will do, but there's Contracts for Ruby: https://github.com/egonSchiele/contracts.ruby
Re:Flow vs. Typescript by chris_st on Monday June 06, 2016 @11:19AM (#11847390)
You might want to check out rubocop[1]. It does static checking, and we're pretty happy with it.

1: https://github.com/bbatsov/rubocop

Re:Flow vs. Typescript by RussianCow on Monday June 06, 2016 @11:47AM (#11847627)
Does it actually do static type checking? Because I don't see anything about types in the documentation. It looks like just a more sophisticated linter, which is very different from what TypeScript and Flow bring to the table.
Re:Flow vs. Typescript by chris_st on Monday June 06, 2016 @04:20PM (#11849977)
Ah, you're right. It's "just" a linter... but a pretty good one.
Re:Flow vs. Typescript by cageface on Monday June 06, 2016 @05:40PM (#11850640)
I started using rubocop earlier this year and I've become a huge fan. It's done a lot to improve the quality of my code and the consistency of code on projects with multiple developers.