From: Rob Rypka <rascal1182@...>
Date: 2005-09-23T01:16:27+09:00
Subject: Re: Large Ruby Apps ?

------=_Part_8224_3948597.1127405784408
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Disposition: inline

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.
>

It seems to me that typed variables and compilers give programmers a false
sense of security about their code. Once you get the darn thing to compile,
you feel like you've accomplished something, where all you've really done i=
s
satisfy the compiler - the semantics of what you've actually done are a
whole 'nother can of worms (type conversion usually has a part in this).

Once you start coding in Ruby, you'll find it's pretty easy to catch those
spelling/type mismatching mistakes. If you add a string and an integer, you
get an error (unlike JavaScript, where "2" + 2 =3D "22"), so you still have=
 to
explicitly convert data (using #to_s) if the behavior is undefined (you
could also define the behavior if you like). You skip the entire compilatio=
n
step, so you are evaluating both proper syntax and semantics at the same
time.

Bottom line: Not having typed variables or static checking really isn't tha=
t
bad, and the dynamic nature of Ruby is really that good.

Rob

------=_Part_8224_3948597.1127405784408--