From: Isaac Gouy <igouy@...>
Date: 2005-09-23T04:26:44+09:00
Subject: Re: Large Ruby Apps ?

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.

Yes.

Type-check well-tested in-production applications (written in a
dynamically type checked language) and expect to find errors:

Detecting Software Defects in Telecom Applications Through Lightweight
Static Analysis: A War Story
http://user.it.uu.se/~kostis/Papers/war_story.pdf
http://user.it.uu.se/~kostis/Papers/bugs05.pdf


Use static analysis on well-tested in-production applications (written
in C) and expect to find errors:

An Empirical Study of Operating System Errors
http://www.stanford.edu/~engler/metrics-sosp-01.ps


Use type recovery tools...
- SmallTyper http://www.neolis.fr/smalltyper/smalltyper.htm
- The Analysis Browser
http://www.cincomsmalltalk.com/CincomSmalltalkWiki/The+Analysis+Browser



> 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