Hacker News Reader

Comment by irjustin | Hacker News Reader

I wish ruby went with hard/explicit imports like python or js.

Solves this problem and "magic" that so many complain about while retaining all the other great things to love about Ruby.

View on HN

Most definitely. When I worked with existing Ruby codebases, it was surprisingly hard to answer the question "where is this defined" when every import is dumped into a single global namespace. I had no idea where stuff came from, and neither the IDE.

Use the `method` method to get a reference to the one you are concerned with, then call `source_location` on it.

That's only during runtime. Simply reading code can be annoyingly difficult without hard references. Especially when the code is coming from a gem.

Many times LSP's can't figure out where the code is coming from if it's a few layers deep. Then you're stuck with the time consuming method of running the code and doing something like what you're describing above just to read it.

And even good type checkers can't infer every symbol statically where Python/JS has no issue with it.

As someone who has no idea how Ruby works, how does Emacs show where any function is defined, right down to line number? Emacs has a big mudball of single namespace too

I mean, nothing is stopping you from doing something like:

  require 'foo'
  Bar = Foo::Bar

Ew. No.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com