Some part of me wonders if they wrote some clear optimizations for defined types that translate easily to Rust. I could give two shits about types honestly, but I’m also one of those weirdos that keeps function arity low, and object definitions concise.
How did people write semi elegant Ruby or python all these years, why wasn’t there such a massive push for types in those languages? Most likely because backend people chose the backend language of their choice, but on the frontend they detested JavaScript (you have no choice, you must JavaScript you anti authoritarian shit heads) so much they had to drown it with some kind of ketchup to make it edible (Typescript).
After using typed backend languages like Rust and even Go (which is painful in its own right, in my perspective) I would hate to work again on a big Ruby or Python codebase. They feel just as disgusting, to use your metaphor, as using plain Javascript instead of Typescript.
> why wasn’t there such a massive push for types in those languages
Are you just choosing to ignore all of the history of type checking Python and Ruby?
Look, this is going to back and forth. Take a time machine to pre Web 2.0 and explain to everyone why OOP programming sucks. I’d dare you to take it off your resume. But we’re here now right?
It’s not hard for me to imagine the reversal of this trend inevitably where everyone goes ‘the fuck are we writing all these verbose types for this dumb web app for?’.
I really don't see what the back and forth is. Types are not inherently a fad - but there can be people who promote them with fanaticism as a cure-all or for problems they can't solve. There were people skeptical and critical of OOP when it was popular. I don't believe that OOP is inherently a fad either - it has its place. Different paradigms just get caught in the windstorm of fad interest.
> [why] are we writing all these verbose types for this dumb web app for?
You can take anything to the extreme, but types are a zero risk, low effort investment that has a quick return. If someone over-types something it's hardly a problem compared to an over engineered OOP codebase.
The problem with OOP is that there is not a single definition.
There are a bunch of people claiming this and that are OOP.
To me OOP is encapsulating a mutable state inside a dynamic namespace (an object, an instance of class), with functions that can access the state and the ability to inherit / extend namespaces.
And I absolutely don't need it, I don't agree with the view some things are better done with OOP. Even gaming or GUI programming, domains typically considered to be the best for OOP, turned to ECS (which is very functional) and Elm style APIs.
Going back at OOP:
I consider mutable state to be a necessary evil to be limited as much as possible; inheritance makes it hard to track what code is being run.
The best practice for writing OOP revolves around limiting mutable state and inheritance, so why even bother with OOP in the first place?
I can have encapsulation with namespaces / modules in functional languages as well. I don't need much else and I can live happily without `this` and using composition instead of inheritance.
OOP was the first marketing wave focused at developers and it's gone.
I guess thats my main deal breaker. It’s simply another foot gun to allow people to over abstract. I have no issues with modest typing, it’s nice, it’s clear. I have issues with what entropy inevitably does.
How did people write semi elegant Ruby or python all these years, why wasn’t there such a massive push for types in those languages? Most likely because backend people chose the backend language of their choice, but on the frontend they detested JavaScript (you have no choice, you must JavaScript you anti authoritarian shit heads) so much they had to drown it with some kind of ketchup to make it edible (Typescript).