I'm not surprised you found Ruby uncomfortable when you describe Ruby as not having a type system. It might just not be the right language for you. That's fine.
> Not knowing if the variable you were dealing with was a String or a URI was great until it very suddenly became not so great.
Nothing stops you from declaring that you expect a given type in Ruby; it's just code, and not mandatory, though you can certainly write code to impose mandatory types with Ruby - there was a while when writing those seemed a rite of passage for Ruby developers, but the reality was that they buy far less than people think until they've tried writing one and/or spent some time using them.
> There's a better way to do it like what Rust does with Some()/None enums and forcing you to unwrap the value and handle the None value explicitly
Nothing stops you from doing that in Ruby, and in fact there are several monad implementations for Ruby that provides building blocks for those kinds of patterns if/when you want to use them.
> I'm not surprised you found Ruby uncomfortable when you describe Ruby as not having a type system. It might just not be the right language for you. That's fine.
Thought we were supposed to "respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize" around here and not nitpick misstatements.
I did not suggest you believe that Ruby does not actually have a type system at all, but your statement to me still implies a view about the way Ruby treats typing that suggests to me that it is a fairly natural consequence you will find Ruby uncomfortable. There's no value judgment in that, nor nitpicking or criticism. Just an observation that Ruby might just not be right for you.
I'm not surprised you found Ruby uncomfortable when you describe Ruby as not having a type system. It might just not be the right language for you. That's fine.
> Not knowing if the variable you were dealing with was a String or a URI was great until it very suddenly became not so great.
Nothing stops you from declaring that you expect a given type in Ruby; it's just code, and not mandatory, though you can certainly write code to impose mandatory types with Ruby - there was a while when writing those seemed a rite of passage for Ruby developers, but the reality was that they buy far less than people think until they've tried writing one and/or spent some time using them.
> There's a better way to do it like what Rust does with Some()/None enums and forcing you to unwrap the value and handle the None value explicitly
Nothing stops you from doing that in Ruby, and in fact there are several monad implementations for Ruby that provides building blocks for those kinds of patterns if/when you want to use them.