From: slonik.az@...
Date: 2005-10-01T20:21:41+09:00
Subject: Re: Large Ruby Apps ?

Kent,
first of all in my post I emphasized static *analysis* not static typing.
Secondly, we are talking *large* applications here. Testing such
applications is a big *combinatorial* problem. In a large application
there are so many logical flows through your program that it is
infeasible to create a test suit that covers them all. If you are
interested in the subject of testing, verification and analysis of
large computer programs, please, use Google as a good starting point.
It is a vast and well developed field of Computer Science. Also see
[ruby-talk 158461] for some links.

Just my two cents.
--Leo--


On 9/30/05, Kent Sibilev <ksruby@gmail.com> wrote:
> I don't agree. Static analysis captures errors that are not usually a
> big problem. If your unit tests have enough coverage they will capture
> all these errors, but static typing makes your programs too noisy since
> you have to feed your compiler with a lot of crap. Very good example of
> how bad it could be, check out java with generics. By increasing the
> size of your program you increase the possibility of making a mistake
> and your program becomes harder to read.
>
> Kent.
>
> On Fri, 2005-09-30 at 22:00 +0900, slonik.az@gmail.com wrote:
> > 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
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
>
>
>