From: dagbrown@... (Dave Brown)
Date: 2003-11-22T07:42:13+09:00
Subject: Re: "stereotyping"

In article <200311201143.59231.sean@celsoft.com>,
Sean O'Dell <sean@celsoft.com> wrote:
: Q: Okay. We have to look to code quite often in lieu of project
: documentation, and normally we look to the description of
: classes, and the declarations of function parameters to
: determine how to make calls and to understand how classes are
: designed that are unfamiliar to some of the programmers on the
: team.  Type checking would help us to know what parameters are
: used by certain methods at-a-glance, which saves us from having
: to spend time studying source code to figure things out.

Of course, the simple answer to that is to use
properly-descriptive parameter names.

It generally doesn't matter what something is made of--what
matters is what it *is*.

In other words, if it's Java you're looking for, you know where to
find it.  Ruby "market share" isn't something I think is even
worth considering.  It's a wonderfully handy tool and it makes my
life easier, and that's all I ask of it.

I don't care what management thinks of Ruby: I only care about
getting the job done.  When something needs to be done, I use
whatever tools are at my disposal and are most effective.  Ruby
doesn't need to be "promoted"; it just needs to be used.  Let it
promote itself by demonstrating results.  Leave the bulleted
feature lists to the likes of Microsoft Word.

--Dave