From: Tait Pollard <taitbp@...>
Date: 2006-06-10T03:07:55+09:00
Subject: Re: Ruby's role in future operating systems

James Britt wrote:
> Louis J Scoras wrote:
>> 
> Question (maybe a bit off-topic):
> 
> The example may be quick, but in what way is it dirty?
> 
> More generally, why do those two words get used as if they were joined
> at the hip?    Is there a bias against being quick, a belief quick only
> comes at the cost of clean code?
> 
> This "quick and dirty" dismissal comes up fairly often when describing
> Ruby to the skeptical ("Well, Ruby may be good for quickandirty scripts,
> but ..." ).
> 
> My usual response is that I prefer quick and dirty to slow and dirty;
> Java or C# (the usual suggested alternatives for "real" programming)
> offer no more assurance of clean code than using Ruby; indeed, the
> opposite is likely more the case.
> 
> Just curious.
> 
> --
> James Britt
> 
> "Programs must be written for people to read, and only incidentally
>   for machines to execute."
>    - H. Abelson and G. Sussman
>    (in "The Structure and Interpretation of Computer Programs)

I'd have to agree in Java you are just as likely to scan hundreds of 
lines looking for that missing curly bracket as you are in ruby to 
search for a missing closure, and static typing brings up it's own 
problems just as much as duck typing.

-- 
Posted via http://www.ruby-forum.com/.