[ruby-talk:23327] Re: Bruce Eckel's opinion of Ruby

Sean Russell wrote:

> *That's* when refactoring comes in handy.  Even if the worst programming 
> constructs were avoided (because they were impossible), the best solution 
> is often to re-write the code.

Unfortunately, there's often no budget for refacturing.

> > Ah, you American you :) Firing people is not so easy here :)
> 
> Where's that?  Western Europe?

The Netherlands, to be exact. I can't be sure whether it's sufficient,
but I've been told you can probably get permission to fire someone if he's
buggering the CEOs pet Koi on stage of the anual stockholders meeting,
provided the person also confesses to swindling the company out of 3
million dollars for the last three years and that the Hummer parked on
the major shareholders' Porche was paod for by selling company secrets
to the direct competition. Or something to that effect.

> I won't disagree with you on that point; training is vastly superior to 
> firing/rehiring; it is easier in America, too.  The pink slip is for people 
> who *won't* be trained (we also call it "reprogramming", or "dissident 
> processing").

That can be a real problem here. Although I must say that I'm
fortunate enough to work at a place where people seem to be really
curious in general. I haven't yet met a person that wouldn't jump at
the occacion to pick something up.

Heck, most people even go to the Visual Basic and Software Process
Improvement courses voluntarily.

> On a more abstract level, I wonder if Europeans (I'm assuming that you're 
> European) are more likely to accept the dictums of a language like Python, 
> because they're more conciously accepting of conformism.  Please note that 
> I'm not saying Americans are less conformist, but only that most Americans 
> aren't conciously aware that they're conformist.

Hmmm.... I don't know. Most people around me would balk at the idea of
Python. Conformist... I would say no, but then, I can hardly be an
objective observer. Most issues get handled by discussing the topic to
death, break for summer, do it once more, then a consensus is formed
that leaves everyone equally dissatisfied. Everyone gets to
participate, to the point where hardly anyone would blink if the
cleaner chimed in on the company strategy for the next ten years
(okay, so maybe I'm exaggerating a _bit_).

> > to be worth the hassle. You got used to behaving properly at home and
> > listen to the missus, which is unintuitive and takes practice, yet you
> > found it to be worth the hassle (presumably :). If you can handle those,
> 
> Oh, you don't have mothers over there?  I had *plenty* of practice taking 
> orders from women long before my missus.  ;-)

Raising kids is handled mostly like the process described above.

> My point is that sometimes the existing process is bad.  Inflexability is 
> always bad.  Inflexability means an inability to adapt, which means 
> evolutionary death.

Errrr..... OK, so you got me here. But sometimes 'inflexibility' (or
as it is known in its weaker form, 'stability') can be good.
Especially if you have projects (and I used to have) where people
would drift in, stay 3-6 months, then leave, for a multi-year project.

> I don't know that Ruby encourages it so much as allows it, but I get your 
> point.  I think the problem is that the code condensing is useful.  I use 
> Ruby as much on the command line for scripting little tasks as I do for 
> large application development, and I'd guess that this is true for many 
> Ruby coders (the *nix ones, at least).  In that environment, the code 
> condensing is invaluable; without it, Ruby would be just as unwieldy as 
> Python for short, on-off tasks.  However, once you become used to the code 
> condensing, I think you tend to unconciously use it in your application 
> code as well, and this is where it creeps in.

That sums it up pretty well.

> > That too depends on the situation. Even though I do use Linux, I see
> > my chances of getting in contact with Linus and getting him to change
> > bits to suit me personally as very slim indeed. Nor would I care to.
> > I'd rather have a system that works like my cow-orkers for
> > consistencies sake. I see the same reasoning from Python users.
> 
> Ahh, but with Linux, if you *really* wanted to, you could make the change 
> yourself.  Python is to Ruby as Windows is to Linux, and this is *exactly* 
> my point about local control.

Phew, we have things left to disagree on :)

I would not change the Kernel or essential userland apps for the same
reason I would not change Python _or_ Ruby: the apps that depend on
the changes would be obsolete in a week, and I would rightfully be
denied support if the author didn't feel like ot that day.

Emile