> I wrote a lot of Ruby back in 2010s. I felt Ruby was a beautiful language. Unfortunately, I don't feel that anymore.

Perhaps because he sucks.

It's easy to write ugly code in any language. You need to think, in order to write good code, in any language. Even then some languages are uglier than others. All my PHP code looks awful in comparison to my ruby code. Even with the same expertise level, the issue remains that PHP is just an uglier language. Similar comparisons can be made for many other languages.

> The biggest issue is no typing.

Well ... it's not. But it is pointless to try to explain this people whose brain is too addicted to "mama told me types must go into everything I touch".

> I worked at Stripe for 4.5 years, so I looked into integrating Sorbet

There you go! This already tainted his ability to THINK.

> Forgot .each in node.children.each do |x|. The error showed up as "unexpected nil" at a random place.

Erm ... how can you forget this while claiming you write a lot of code in ruby?

By the way, I almost never use the do/end synax. It helps me visually to use {}.

A side effect is that:

    def foobar(
        i = node.children
      )
      i.each {|element|
        check_for_cats_in_this_container(element)
      }
    end

will also be easier to visually notice missing things such as ".each" or ".map" or anything. Keep the structure simple at all times. And no, forgetting .each a lot - that is a bogus complaint. People using ruby for a little while don't really do such an error. But let's assume it is that way:

    def foobar(
        i = node.children
      )
      i {|element|
        check_for_cats_in_this_container(element)
      }
    end

Well, that visually already looks wrong. What method did you want to run on the variable i here?

> Forgot .children in node.children[i]. The error showed up as > "unexpected nil" at a random place.

Mate - use methods. The guy seems to have written only spaghetti code in ruby. Definitely not "4.5 years of writing ruby". Nah.

Also, "unexpected nil" - first, such an error does not exist, he probably means a nil. Second, why do you not check for nils properly? You don't need types for that. So the issue is you were lazy when writing the code. Understandable, but not a reason to "I need types" as compensation for your own laziness here.

> Using assert_raises in the test obscured a compilation error.

What compilation actually? Then again someone who forgets .each, already disqualified here.

>I used ruby_llm-mcp where the doc mentioned tool.input_schema but the latest version has renamed it to tool.params_schema (issue). It took me a while to figure out since there was no typing hint to help me with it.

Sounds like a project with awful documentation. This is a problem with many ruby projects. For some reason ruby projects hate documentation, with a few exceptions. I never understood this. To me it seems writing ruby is fun, then nobody wants to write documentation. That's really stupid of those people who do. Please look at rack. This thing has no real documentation that is useful. Same with opal and ruby-wasm. Ruby hates documentation. It's my number #1 complaint too.

I am fine with those admitting to this problem. Who I can not stand are the "the code is self-explanatory". This always leads me to assume the code is utter garbage. And this indeed is almost always the case so.

> rubyzip: it has an obscure bug where it produced a corrupted DOCX file. I've encountered this bug with a DOCX file from our customers. I can't share the confidential file to the rubyzip author.

Or it is a fake story. Is this AI generated text? The guy makes up things on the fly.

People, please - stop using AI. It will slop zombify your brain.

Ruby vs. Java vs. TypeScript: my experience on building a Cowork DOCX plugin