From: rpmohn@... (Ross Mohn)
Date: 2000-11-23T08:40:01+09:00
Subject: [ruby-talk:6535] Re: Ruby vs. UML ?

Dave@Thomases.com (Dave Thomas) wrote in
<m2vgtgj63y.fsf@zip.local.thomases.com>: 
  .
  .
  .
>Along come practices such as eXtreme Programming. They say that the
>best communication is working code, and minimize up-front work in
>favor of getting something in front of the end user. We think that's
>wonderful: we've been advocating tracer-bullet and prototyping
>approaches to describing systems for a long time.
>
>Now what if you could reduce the gap even further. Rather than use
>(say) Java, and get 10% of the overall work done in a 2 week
>iteration, what if you could use Ruby, and get 50%, or 100%. Wouldn't
>that be better?  So, we're investigating how Ruby could be used as a
>way of expressing a requirement in running code.
  .
  .
  .

Okay, so it's kind of XP to the eXtreme ;-)
I guess I'll have to pick up an XP book. I've been avoiding them because 
I'm not into the whole pair programming thing, but I do love (and use) the 
XUnit testing stuff.

I guess this is stuff for your next book? I'm hoping it'll be something 
like _Pragmatic Programming with Ruby_?

P.S. A friend of mine, who happens to be named Ruby, saw my copy of 
_Programming Ruby_ the other day. She gave me a funny look and said "What 
is that, a novel about joining a cult?"
-- 
Ross Mohn
rpmohn@panix.com