From: slonik.az@...
Date: 2005-09-30T22:00:19+09:00
Subject: Re: Large Ruby Apps ?

Very useful discussion that highlights quite few misconceptions.
So far in this thread posters were contrasting "old school" static
type and variable checking versus Ruby's dynamic nature with run-time
Unit Testing properly done. The truth of the matter is that a
programmer's life is easier when one has both:

1: Static (aka compile time) program analysis that captures many
"human" errors like typos, obvious flow control flaws, etc.
2: Dynamic, run-time program verification consisting of unit tests and
integration tests.

Ruby clearly lacks static analysis tools.

Just my 2 cents
--Leo--


On 9/21/05, Warren Seltzer <warrens@actcom.net.il> wrote:
> I am coming to Ruby having used the usual list of scripting and C*  languages.  Since Ruby
> has such powerful programming features, I think it may be used for some really large
> system.  My decades long observation of software is that small programs that succeed
> become large programs.
>
> But I am concerned about Ruby's suitability for programming in the large.  First off, the
> lack of the requirement to declare variables sounds like an invitation to programming
> bugs.  It's just too easy to assign something to a misspelling of a variable name.  Make
> the same spelling mistake again and you won't even get a warning about an undefined
> variable.
>
> For example this 1-line program issues no error:
>
> puts @whatever
>
> This is a code bug that a statically typed compiler would scream about.
>
> -------------------
>
> Also: Is anybody doing a port to 64-bit systems?
>
> -------------------
>
> Also, a history question.  With Ruby coming out of Japan, why wasn't Unicode support done
> earlier?  You'd think it would be insulated mono-lingual Americans who would delay that...
>
>
> Warren Seltzer
>
>
>
>