From: Rob Harwood <rharwood@...>
Date: 2001-11-11T16:31:09+09:00
Subject: [ruby-talk:24862] Re: Why is ruby slow (compared to perl)

"Sean Russell" <ser@germane-software.com> wrote in message
news:3bec217d_3@spamkiller.newsgroups.com...
>
> Hmm.  I distinctly remember Kent Beck, in "XP Explained" saying that if
you
> aren't doing all (5?) of the XP "rules" at 100%, you aren't doing XP.  I
> read that to mean:  if you break the rules, you aren't doing XP, which to
> me means: don't break the rules.
>
> --- SER

Sorry, too, for the OT, but I also had to jump in (for different reasons,
though).

It is true that Kent Beck says "If you're not doing all of XP, you're not
doing XP". But he's saying it for a different reason than "You must follow
all the rules or you're not doing it right." (Aside: One of the rules of XP
is to adapt the rules, so they can't be *that* sacred.)

Proclaiming 'one true way' of XP is a defense mechanism for an emerging
technology. In this case, the technology is a process. A lot of people have
said, "I tried XP and it didn't work," but the vast majority of these people
were not actually following the practices, only half-heartedly so. In order
to keep XP from being associated with failures of implementation (as if they
were failures of the practices), it's necessary to set out exactly what
constitutes successful implementation, to cleanly separate what-it-is from
what-it-is-not.

Anyway, this is really off topic, but it does have some relevance to Ruby
since Ruby is also an emerging technology. Myself, I have difficulty joining
the Ruby bandwagon of pioneers because of my lack of familiarity with
Unix-style installation and command-line interface. I need everything
wrapped up in a shiny shrink-wrapped package. I understand Ruby and what
it's about, I just don't have the proper background to wade through the maze
of tools and .rd files. Heck I couldn't even figure out how to get RD to
work. With XP, on the other hand, it has advanced to the point of being in a
shiny shrink-wrapped package (Kent's book) plus it has a whole lot of
support material (Wiki, the XP book series, etc.). The what-it-is is very cl
ear and easily accessible to just about anyone. Ruby has one English
introduction book, and a rag-tag collection of modules in various states of
repair and documentation (and much of that is in Japanese). Am I criticizing
Ruby? No, just pointing out the next logical step in its evolution. Make it
shiny, make it shrink-wrapped (and soon! I can hardly wait, dammit!).

Rob Harwood