From: Quentin Crain Date: 2002-01-01T13:47:26+09:00 Subject: [ruby-talk:29931] Re: Ruby/Python: Software Engineering Mathieu/All: Embedded: At 10:34 AM 1/1/2002 +0900, Mathieu Bouchard wrote: >On Tue, 1 Jan 2002, noone wrote: > > I am not meaning to annoy people or "fight", so I will ask again: > > Is there any resource which explains how Ruby helps me write better > > code from the software engineering / methodology perspective? > >That perspective doesn't exist, because there are many of them. AFAIK, >methodologies like XP and PragProg (which are the most popular among Ruby >users) carefully avoid dictating coding or cosmetics and instead >concentrate on the whole authorship process. I am not sure how to reconcile with: Code must be formatted to agreed coding standards. [ http://www.extremeprogramming.org/rules/standards.html ] We all code to the exact same standards. [ http://www.xprogramming.com/Practices/PracCodingStandards.html ] Develop and adopt formal style standards. [ http://c2.com/cgi/wiki?FormalStandards ] > > 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?! > >You are relatively safe with either Ruby or Python. The biggest offenders >may be C (buffer overflows, too many typecasting) and shell-scripts >(quoting hell). Perl is safe compared to those, but still lacks exception >handling, which makes it overhead to write correct code. But what about methodologies? How does Ruby help (or hinder) me there? > > A language is more than its syntax--it ought to fit into a > > methodology, encourage adherence, > >A language is there to allow, not to restrict. Any and all languages do both. And by being "pure"-OO does that not restrict to a particular paradigm? >________________________________________________________________ >Mathieu Bouchard http://hostname.2y.net/~matju thanks!! <