That being said, Matz also isn't a fan of static typing. Static type annotations exist in the form of RBS, but no one that matters in the Ruby eco-system is pushing static type annotations in .rb files themselves.
Also, after seeing TypeScript, I'm very happy about that.
I myself am unsure where I stand on RBS. I wouldn't mind more use of it in my gem dependencies, but would probably not like it if it was enforced everywhere.
For now I'll stick with improving my test/spec-writing skills, and maybe some runtime type checking like https://literal.fun/
I think RBS is a decent tool, I don't mind it as long as it never becomes a requirement for anything. I hate the trend of statically typed dynamic languages because it's all of the pain without the main benefit (native speed).
That being said, Matz also isn't a fan of static typing. Static type annotations exist in the form of RBS, but no one that matters in the Ruby eco-system is pushing static type annotations in .rb files themselves.
Also, after seeing TypeScript, I'm very happy about that.