Because it is simply incorrect. I have been using ruby since 2005 or so. Static types were never relevant or needed in the slightest here. The various claims by the type afficionados camps could easily be disproven and rejected, but that never stopped them from trying to ruin other languages.
> But I don’t think appreciating modern static typing is just evangelism.
But it is evangelism, because the type-addicted devs want to slap on types on ruby. That is evangelism. They try to change an existing language to their world view and narrative. And you can not talk to them because their brain is deadlocked here. This is why the person you replied to, is correct here.
Languages are always evolving, because the needs they serve are always evolving. Stasis is death.
> I have been using ruby since 2005 or so. Static types were never relevant or needed in the slightest here.
We are like Liebniz monads, with disjoint views of the same universe due to our different experiences. I worked for several years at Shopify and there were droves of developers begging for types. Shopify itself recognized this need. We contributed early to Sorbet and began implementing it in the main monolith prior to it being publicly announced. I personally was the incident response on-call for a million-dollar bug that static typing would have prevented from ever being merged. And so on.
> But I don’t think appreciating modern static typing is just evangelism.
But it is evangelism, because the type-addicted devs want to slap on types on ruby. That is evangelism. They try to change an existing language to their world view and narrative. And you can not talk to them because their brain is deadlocked here. This is why the person you replied to, is correct here.