>But before I did so I researched first. I asked a few instances to analyse the project in terms of gains of complexity, stability, testability, etc., and while (obviously) stability would drop (no types in Ruby) it’s not that awful (Sorbet has types in Ruby!).
Is it not a rage-bait argument to say that not having types implies less stability?
This defies belief. “I wanted to scratch a technical itch. My local AI completed the job in 30 minutes. I never pressed Start to see if it works, but I did write a blog post about it…”
At first I thought this would be an interesting article, but as soon as they mentioned using an LLM to do the conversion I lost all interest. It's like saying "I wanted this done so I got my underling to do it, here is my story...". Like why would I bother to read it then, as it was clearly not you doing the conversion or putting any thought into it.
Is it not a rage-bait argument to say that not having types implies less stability?
I think this is cool. Verbosity of languages is important when it comes to coding with AI. I’ve found Go to be a happy medium.
fd . -e rs -uu | xargs cat | wc -l
Why not just:
find . -name '*.rs' | xargs wc -l
From Go to Rust ... hype!
From Rust to Ruby ... the new hype!?
https://web.archive.org/web/20091015091833/http://www.hackle...