[#2367] Standard libraries — Dave Thomas <dave@...>

From ruby-dev summary:

60 messages 2004/02/11

[#2397] PATCH: deprecate cgi-lib, getopts, importenv, parsearg from standard library — Gavin Sinclair <gsinclair@...>

Index: cgi-lib.rb

15 messages 2004/02/12

[#2465] PATCH: OpenStruct#initialize to yield self — Gavin Sinclair <gsinclair@...>

This is a common approach I use to object initialization; I don't know

24 messages 2004/02/19

Re: Standard libraries

From: "NAKAMURA, Hiroshi" <nahi@...>
Date: 2004-02-14 12:31:55 UTC
List: ruby-core #2447
Hi,

> From: "Eivind Eklund" <eivind@FreeBSD.org>
> Sent: Friday, February 13, 2004 9:31 PM

> There is also a significant difference between documentation in the form
> of text and documentation in the form of code:
> - Text documents what the author intended the code to do.
> - Code documents what the code *does*.
> 
> I believe both of these as important to know for using a codebase.

Agreed.  I think so.

But it's language, so we can write our intent into sources even
if it's a little restricted.  With low-level language such as
C/C++, it's certainly hard to communicate with my colleague
only via source code.  But I can do it with my old reliable
friend.

We have a good high-level language so it must be doable, I believe.
I do NOT say I always do/did that, but I try to write my intent
to souces.  You cannot feel my intent from soap4r thing?  Ah,
sorry, it's definitely my fault, I'm not a good library developper
but it's the different issue.  I met many good library,
communicated through source, and had a good development time
(thanks).

No, I don't say "ruby should do".  Just introducing my though
about good development.  Ruby is fun except someonse let
me do one-comment per one-line development. :-)

Regards,
// NaHi

In This Thread