Readit NewsThis angle might also be NVidias reason for buying Groq. People will pay a premium for faster tokens.
Someone of this could be system overload I suppose.
One of the problems with writing detailed specs is it means you understand the problem, but often the problem is not understand - but you learn to understand it through coding and testing.
So where are we now?
Once, my wife and I were stopped, but not frisked, and cited for riding bikes, on a sidewalk at 2AM on a stretch of Atlantic Ave that would kill you to ride on. It made no sense, until I found out that my neighbor and his friend had been murdered at a street party. There was a drag net out trying to find the killer and they stopped anyone for anything.
A tough city.
“It has a field of type X” has never been a useful test for me, my tests are always more like:
“if I send message X I get return value or action Y”
… with my admittedly limited experience of types I don’t see how they replicate this.
Therefore it looks like I’d only be “replacing” tests that I’d never write in the first place.
What am I missing?
For these tests we don’t care about the content only that something didn’t get incorrectly set or the mailer interface changed.
Now if the developer changes the Mailer to require a user object the compiler tells us there is an error. Sorbet will error and say “hey you need to update your code here and here by adding a User object”
Before we would have had test coverage for that - or maybe not and missed the error.
From someone who has worked mostly in Ruby (but also Perl and TypeScript and Elixir) I think for web development, a dynamic language with optional types actually hits maybe the best point for developer productivity IMO.
Without any types in a dynamic language, you often end up with code that can be quite difficult to understand what kinds of objects are represented by a given variable. Especially in older poorly factored codebases where there are often many variations of classes with similar names and often closely related functions it can feel almost impossible until you're really familiar with the codebase.
With an actual fully typed language you're much more constrained in terms of what idioms you can use and how you can express and handle code by the type system. If you're not adept or knowledgeable about these things you can spend a lot of time trying to jam what you're attempting into the type system only to eventually realize it's impossible to do.
A gradual type system on top of a dynamic language gets you some of the best of both worlds. A huge amount of the value is just getting typing at function boundaries (what are the types of the arguments for this function? what is the type of what it's returning?) but at the same time it's extremely easy to just sidestep the type system if it can't express what you want or is too cumbersome.
And the LLMs take advantage of the types through the LSP and type checking.
It’s not like Ruby becomes Haskell. But it does provide a good deal of additional saftey, less testing, LSP integration is good, and it is gradual.
There is a performance hit but we found it to be quite small and not an issue.
But there are area of our application that use Grape and it is too meta for Sorbet so we don’t try and use it there.
https://sorbet.org/blog/2021/07/30/open-sourcing-sorbet-comp...