From: Robbie Carlton <robbie.carlton@...>
Date: 2005-09-23T00:09:33+09:00
Subject: Re: Large Ruby Apps ?

------=_Part_3773_31272256.1127401770364
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Disposition: inline

the thing is, the gains you get from dynamic typing just far outweigh the
loss of compiler type checking. One of the reasons that ruby is so exciting
is that the compiler just lets you get on with writing code that does
things, and at the price of the occasional small bug which is generally not
hard to find.

On 9/22/05, klancaster1957@gmail.com <klancaster1957@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> I don't know why anyone would consider having tools (like compilers)
> help catch errors as "old school". Personally, I want every tool I use
> to help me catch my goofs. I've just started using Ruby, and while I am
> jazzed with the language and really excited about Rails in particular,
> the relative lack of support for static code checking and runtime
> debugging as compared to C#/Java/etc. is a little disconcerting. In
> those languages, I rely on unit testing, static checkers, AND runtime
> checking to insure that I get it right.
> Keith
>
> Berger, Daniel wrote:
> > That's a very old school philosophy. It just isn't so.
> >
> <snip>
> > You'll get a warning if you run with -w. Also, those unit tests (that I
> > know you wrote) should catch that.
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> > Dan
>
>
>

------=_Part_3773_31272256.1127401770364--