From: David Pollak Date: 2006-05-04T06:01:45+09:00 Subject: Re: Sharp knives and glue ------=_Part_52536_32968491.1146690102098 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline Kate, On 5/3/06, kate rhodes wrote: > > > Java and Ada just have more "guard rails" as you put it. I never claimed > any > language was "better" or the right choice. But i did claim that using a > language with more restrictions was probably a better choice for less > disciplined/experienced/good developers, which it seems you did too. No, that is not my point. My point is that the dangerous parts of a language should be more difficult to access or at least be wrapped in a way that makes explicit that the dangerous features are being used (see the example of C#'s 'unsafe' keyword which allows developers to access C/C++ style pointers from a managed language.) This is not a discussion about the discipline of developers. It's a discussion about the complexity of software and the difficulty for anybody, no matter how skilled they are, to manage that complexity. My premise and argument is simple... in order for Ruby to grow from a tool used by small teams to build small to medium sized projects into an enterprise class environment, it must make available a series of tools/functions/etc. that allow better management of the complexities of huge systems. -- -------- David Pollak's Ruby Playground http://dppruby.com ------=_Part_52536_32968491.1146690102098--