From: Kero <kero@...>
Date: 2005-04-30T19:29:27+09:00
Subject: Re: ruby static typing

> Thanks for the dense ( in a good way :-) ) response.

"static typing does not work when your types are not static"

Anonymous classes, remove/undef_method, method_missing (and eval to
hide things even further) are all so dynamic.

As another poster put it, Ruby has other ways to get quality code.

> I guess my point is there is alot of mistrust in the 'corporate' world
> as to whether dynamic/scripty languages are suitable for million+ LOC
> projects.

As if (void*) in C is a solution.
Adding a label doesn't fix things. In Ruby everything is an Object, that
should be enough for corporate drones.

As if Software Engineering in general is such a big success that it has
been proven that static typing is a panacea.
*cough* no silver bullet *cough*

The whole question about million+ LOC doesn't even make sense.
Use a language with e.g. S-expressions when you need to prove code.
Use a language that can be (and is) optimised when you need to crunch
numbers (perhaps on a massively parallel machine)
Use Ruby when you need flexibility.
[insert a few more demanding requirements and solutions/languages]
and then use Ruby for everything else :P

> Type safety seems to be a big selling point at that scale, so being
> able to 'componentise' chunks of ruby by limiting coupling to using
> rigid interfaces might assuage some of that concern. Of course after
> the code executes post interface all bets are off with mutable
> classes/objects, allthough Object.freeze probably needs a bit of
> publicity here.

Could you use a $SAFE level for that?


+--- Kero ----------------------- kero@chello@nl ---+
|  all the meaningless and empty words I spoke      |
|                      Promises -- The Cranberries  |
+--- M38c --- http://httpd.chello.nl/k.vangelder ---+