RBS
Fewer than 5 people recommend it so far, so there's no written verdict. Here is what commenters said.
2recommend
3warn against
Nov 8, 2025first mention
May 24, 2026latest mention
Why people recommend it
“Matz's static typing design, RBS, keeps it even more token-efficient as it adds type annotations”
“RBS is a thing; we use it extensively”
Caveats and dissent
“Type annotations being in separate files is also inconvenient.”
“putting types in a totally separate file is an abysmal UX”
Often compared with
Threads where it came up
- Ruby already solved my problem 2 mentions
- Ruby for Good 1 mention
- Returning to Rails in 2026 1 mention
- Software Survival 3.0 1 mention
- Ruby 4.0.0 Released 1 mention
- Lowtype: Elegant Types in Ruby 1 mention
Quotes are verbatim; the verdict and theme labels are written by a model from these comments, and every clause links to its sources.
All comments 8
“Type annotations being in separate files is also inconvenient.”
“would be interesting to try that”
“Matz's static typing design, RBS, keeps it even more token-efficient as it adds type annotations”
“these aren't widely used as far as I am aware”
I built portrayal[1] (a much simpler replacement for those dry libs), and was also experimenting[2] with runtime-enforced types based on this lib. My general thoughts is that declaring types in Ruby is unnecessarily complicated, because you're basically just running values through pieces of boolean logic, and nothing else. Might as well make that explicit, which is what my experiment did. I didn't however publish the
From where I stand, Ruby has much more interesting work going on JIT land than Python. Much of the Python stuff, is actually about rewriting Python tools into Rust due to its interpreter slowness and no one caring about PyPy, now apparently there is even a PEP to rewrite CPython! https://discuss.python.org/t/pre-pep-rust-for-cpython/104906
“putting types in a totally separate file is an abysmal UX”
“RBS is a thing; we use it extensively”