From: Francis Cianfrocca <garbagecat10@...>
Date: 2007-09-28T23:41:44+09:00
Subject: Re: question on bottleneck of ruby

------=_Part_538_6178902.1190990503468
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline

On 9/28/07, Robert Dober <robert.dober@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On 9/28/07, Francis Cianfrocca <garbagecat10@gmail.com> wrote:
> <snip>
> >
> > In some respects, guilty as charged. (I deny the point about
> > non-understandability. If you're going to develop like this, then
> writing
> > documentation and unit tests *must* dominate the development effort,
> perhaps
> > by 10-to-1. Otherwise, you end up with nothing usable.)
> This however (although 10 might be an exaggeration) is a good thing
> more often than not.



10-1 is no exaggeration, and may indeed be understating it. For a software
micro-effort to throw off capturable business value, the documentation is
almost more important than the program. That's precisely *because* the
analysis of fleeting value-opportunities is also fleeting. I've gotten quite
used to putting short (< 2000 lines) Ruby scripts into production and having
them run trouble free (except for slow performance and high memory
consumption). I've gotten just as used to completely (and willfully)
forgetting all the technical analysis about them after they're written. I
can do this to a very limited extent in Java, but I've never managed it in
Python.

------=_Part_538_6178902.1190990503468--