From: Brian Takita <brian.takita@...>
Date: 2005-12-23T13:04:01+09:00
Subject: Re: Diff of opinion on dynamic stuff

------=_Part_14625_32277111.1135310629857
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Disposition: inline

There seems to be alot of industry inertia on static time tools. Better
runtime tools would make a dynamic language such as Ruby more mainstream.

A number of people have proposed that the runtime tools can work with good
unit tests in place to exercise all of the code paths.

The breakpoint library is a good start but there is more potential. For
example, a tool that analyzes the runtime paths and graphs an object's
dependencies would be nice.

On 12/22/05, Bil Kleb <Bil.Kleb@nasa.gov> wrote:
>
> Steven Lumos wrote:
> >
> > Rubyists are mostly people who know how not to aim at their foot, and
> > are skilled in first-aid just in case.  But what happens when the code
> > is delivered and moves into maintenance mode?
>
> My code goes into maintenance mode almost as soon as
> I've written 40 lines, i.e., I try to go depth-first
> and then flesh out the skeleton as priorities dictate.
>
> This is all done while creating a safety-net, a custom-
> application debugger, through test-first development.
> (Note: I've never had need of Ruby's debugger.)
>
> The maintenance folks (me initially) are left with
> executable, non-lying specifications for how everything
> should behave and recipes for building new safety net.
>
> Later,
> --
> Bil
> http://fun3d.larc.nasa.gov
>
>
>


--
Brian Takita
http://weblog.freeopinion.org

------=_Part_14625_32277111.1135310629857--