vim-projectionist

> Who is "we"? $dayjob; does it really matter who as long as it's an example of it being useful to someone? > putting types in a totally separate file is an abysmal UX. Is it though? I much prefer def frobz(fizbazbang) # ... the code to def frobz(Hash<Symbol | String | Integer, Array<String | Integer>> fizbazbang) -> Array<Hash<String | Integer, String>> fizbazbang # ... the code It's the job of the code editor to get that information surfaced to me at the proper place (e.g virtual content like vim inlay hints, hover tooltips, those vscode embeds or whatever they are called). If I need to jump quickly I have projections† set up. Having the types inline isn't that useful anyway as it gives yo only the signature but gives you no info of whatever type intermediate things are without much thinking. And interesting things hap

> For myself, I'm fine with the typing being in a separate .rbs file We type[0] by having one separate .rbs file per .rb file. Works really well with an editor's vertical splits: type outline on one side, code on the other. That, or use something like vim-projectionist[1]. We have a static typing guide for contributors[2], and I'm also accreting common errors and issues behind the scenes to produce a 'rbs+steep by example' to ease folks in. [0]: (WIP: there's a huge codebase to type, but we're progressively getting there) https://github.com/DataDog/dd-trace-rb/tree/master/sig [1]: https://github.com/tpope/vim-projectionist [2]: https://github.com/DataDog/dd-trace-rb/blob/master/docs/Stat...

When actually inside vim Tim Pope's excellent vim-projectionist has a wonderfully useful feature for flipping between various related files(:h projectionist-alternate). The whole plugin is really cool, it makes it so simple to configure project specific working environments with it. https://github.com/tpope/vim-projectionist