I think Matz is taking the 'compiler as assistant' idea to a logical
conclusion.
You know, the idea that compilers/interpreters shouldn't barf at you, but
give you a helping hand to write your code, which is where Elm is at also!
The thing is, I find it hard to how how this could work well in
It's an interesting perspective, but Matz is doing what's right for ruby.
Ruby is dynamically typed; Elm is statically typed. Ruby is mature and has
a lot of users counting on stability; Elm is pre-1.0 and has a smaller,
more adventurous user base. Granted we have upgrade guides and elm-format
I am in the middle of watching a video about 'ducked inference' in Ruby
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1l3U1X3z0CE
basically, static type checking / inference without the type annotations.
The annotations will be kept in the background for compile time check,
documentation or IDE purposes...
