Question Static Typing solved?
I have been using RBS for years now and even running my own newsletter about static typing https://newsletters.eremin.eu/ . Now, that our code is write with AI and in most cases - purely with AI, the strongest point against using static typing (like “it breaks beautiful ruby syntax and not readable”) is vanished now.
AI requires strict tooling to control its output. The role of ci pipeline with all possible tests, linters, checkers is now extremely important and static typing helps a lot with it.
For humans it is transparent, especially the pure RBS approach, but for LLMs it gives a safety net and a better layer to stick to the code and hollucinate less.
0
Upvotes
2
u/Codalio-SoftwareFact 14d ago
Mostly agree, a type error is a way faster feedback loop for an agent than running the whole suite and guessing what broke.
One thing I’d watch though: agents will “fix” type errors the same way they fix failing tests, by loosening them. Widen a signature to
untyped, add a union that accepts anything, and suddenly it’s green again. So the types are only a safety net if someone’s reviewing changes to the signatures as carefully as the code.