From: Thien Vuong <tvuong@...>
Date: 2003-11-20T16:42:15+09:00
Subject: Re: "stereotyping" (was: Re: Strong Typing (Re: Managing metadata about attribute types) )



Austin Ziegler wrote:
> On Thu, 20 Nov 2003 14:52:17 +0900, Thien Vuong wrote:
> 
>>I'm in the same position too. Love Ruby but cannot recommend it
>>for team development w/o having the language provides some sort of
>>intrinsic interface validation.
> 
> 
> Again: why? Why do you need intrinsic interface validation? As
> Michael Campbell noted, if a library writer isn't going to document
> their code, what makes you think that they're going to put interface
> validation in there?
> 
> That's what no one in this discussion has been able to explain. The
> broad statement is made: "I need interface validation!" But no
> convincing explanation as to why it's needed is made, either. OR why
> interface validation is preferred to DbC or TDD -- both of which I
> consider to be superior techniques to compile time type checking.
> 

I'll take a shot here - sorry could not resist.

The way it works for me is: what we need is based on a analysis of the
requirement and the previous experience/learning of how this sort of
things is done.  And that is not based on what language we used before
although it would probably has some influence.  This is a decision/
intelligent choice.

It would then be communicated to the team as the guideline on how to do
it.  We then monitor its progress/success/failure and make adjustment.
If it works well - it got promoted to other groups, or even boast about
it in comp.lang.ruby (on other thought, maybe not :).  If not, oh well
.... sorry... Who made that damn decision?

Library writer
good/bad behaviour is not relevant, because this is a group recommended/
enforced guideline - i.e. seek employment elsewhere if an individual
does not wish to conform/be accounted to minimum project requirements.

Can't wave hand and say we don't need that at all because it is
the dynamic language Ruby - we can't guarantee anything.  It may
work with some of us (including me), but a non-starter to convince others.

Agree that DbC is better for this particular requirement (which is only 
one of an design requirements) - but at this time, I am trying to
use Ruby, not Eiffel.

Thien