[ruby-talk:29930] Re: Ruby/Python: Software Engineering

James/All:

Embedded:

At 09:06 AM 1/1/2002 +0900, James Britt (rubydev) wrote:
> >
> > > Enforcement of indentation, lack of what you call "line noise" and 
> lack of short cuts
> > > have very little to do with quality of software.
> > >
> >
> > This can quickly turn into another topic, but it seems to me if you use
> > "classic" methodologies, then you might be right: You spend a bunch of 
> time
> > facilitating communication outside of code (eg. w/ documents such as
> > specifications, test plans, etc.)--you can then "afford" to have 
> unintelligable
> > code, because it is explained somewhere else. If one follows "lightweight"
> > process, then the code itself become more important, and must be more 
> than just "code".
> >
> > My environment happens to be one where "classic" documentation is 
> 'difficult'
> > to implement and for whatever other reasons not done for the most part.
>
>The use of the word "classic" suggests that software development is a 
>mature field, with
>a long, venerable history of knowldege and techniques.  People have been 
>writing
>code for less than 100 years.  Calling anything to do with computers 
>"classic"
>seems odd.  (It makes me think of "classic rock"; might make sense in 200 
>years.)

Umm ... my interpretation of the above is that you did understand my 
meaning of "classic" (duly quoted), so its usage seems to be clear nonetheless.

>I'm not convinced that writing software is engineering.  I'd rather pick 
>my tools
>the way I would pick drawing pencils or a violin; I want things that give me
>freedom, not force me to work in a certain style.

In short: It is not important to be able to draw, create music or code in 
"unnatural" styles. The point is to use the tools which are "friendly" 
without loss of power.

Or do I miss something?

> >
> > Finally, if this is the case, then what is the benefit to Ruby 
> being/having:
> >
> >   It is simple, straight-forward, ...
>
>I find Ruby makes it simpler to write code that does just what I want done.
>It's easier to read, and easier to see what's supposed to be happening.

I find Python makes it simpler to write code that when read by another is 
easier for them to see what I want done.

> >
> >
> > If readable code has little to do with "quality software" then, well 
> ... that
> > can not be what you meant to say ....
>
>Illegible code can still be well-designed, though it can be a major pain
>to maintain.  Readability goes beyond indentation and avoiding line-noise 
>shortcuts.
>I've yet to hear of a language that prevents you from misnaming variables or
>methods.  (Hmm. Maybe we need a language that prevents variables names less
>than five characters long; must have a least one vowel?  Might be a start ...)

Agreed--but why does this matter? Obviously anything/everything can be 
misused; but that does not mean everything is then equal.

>Besides, enforcing decent coding style is generally not hard.  The odd-person-
>out gets ridiculed and ostracized by the other developers. :)
>
> >
> > > Nobody will try to force you to switch from Python to Ruby.
> >
> > Unfortunately, this is NOT the case. When my group within my company 
> looks to
> > improve productivity, one question is: Can we develop code better? Again,
> > unfortunately, most people simply compare languages by their "features" 
> (eg.
> > "pure"-OO or iterators). When asked: What about choosing a langauge 
> which is
> > "friendly" towards one's problems *and methodologies*? one is dismissed 
> with:
> > You can write bad code in any language. Well, sure you can, but why 
> *encourage* it?!
>
>I think you may be putting the cart before the horse.  What looks like bad
>code according to one design method may be fine according to another. If a 
>language
>requires (or strongly encourages) following a particular philosophy then 
>it also
>restricts you from exploring others.

Agreed again. But just because a language says it does not restrict you 
does not make it true. Or better put, every language has a philosophy and 
restricts to it. Ruby is no different right? In fact, by being "pure"-OO it 
forces *that* particular philosophy (would it not?).

>Evolving one's development philosophy shouldn't require you to change 
>languages
>(though that may happen anyway).  One day people will look back at XP and say,
>"How quaint."  Not because XP is wrong or misguided, but because it will 
>inevitably
>lead to other, better things.  You shouldn't have to ditch code because the
>language forces you to think in a way you no longer find appropriate.

I do not understand this. I hear you saying that I should not rewrite just 
because I have changed my thinking. Fine--but *new* code should be written 
in the way I find appropriate right?

Otherwise, is not this saying: One should code in ways one does not think? 
That can not be very efficient nor productive.


> >
>...
> >
> >
> > A language is more than its syntax--it ought to fit into a methodology,
> > ...
>
>Perhaps it should be the other way around: Find languages that provide
>clean ways to do most things with a minimum of fuss, and see what development
>methods can be derived from their use.

Unless I am misunderstanding this says: The tools should drive the methodology.

I believe the needs of the developers (along with being human) take 
precedence. And I would be confused as to how things would go better when 
forcing people to act in "unnatural" ways, ways forced on them by their 
tool choices.


>James
>
> >
> >
> > thanks!! <<q

thanks again!! <<q


------------------------------
Service guarantees Citizenship
Would you like to know more?