From: Andrew Hunt Date: 2002-08-01T04:14:24+09:00 Subject: Re: Q's about rubydbc >I'd be interested to know if anybody is using this too. > >Might design-by-contract be a worthy addition to (perhaps my >implementation!) standard language? I think so, despite the fact that I haven't used it much myself :-) My point is that DBC is actually *more* useful outside of the static type checking environment of an Eiffel, C++, or Java. I truly do not care about the type of an object I'm calling, but I care deeply about it's semantics, and that's what Design by Contract is all about. So yes, my two cents says it is a worthy element that can be used effectively in the construction of larger systems. To be effective, it should be part of the base-level language, and all of the standard library classes should be annotated with contracts. Ruby may never need it, but I don't think we'll know either way unless the facility exists in such an ingrained manner that it becomes second-nature to use it. /\ndy -- Andrew Hunt, The Pragmatic Programmers, LLC. Innovative Object-Oriented Software Development and Mentoring for Agile Methods web: http://www.pragmaticprogrammer.com email: andy@pragmaticprogrammer.com -- Author of "The Pragmatic Programmer" * "Programming Ruby" * The Agile Manifesto Columnist for IEEE Software Magazine Pragmatic T-shirts available at: www.pragmaticprogrammer.com/merchandise.html --