Account Options

  1. Sign in
The old Google Groups will be going away soon, but your browser is incompatible with the new version.
Google Groups Home
« Groups Home
comp.lang.ruby
+ new post
About this group
Subscribe to this group
This is a Usenet group - learn more
Message from discussion methods and types
The group you are posting to is a Usenet group. Messages posted to this group will make your email address visible to anyone on the Internet.
Your reply message has not been sent.
Your post was successful
 
From:
To:
Cc:
Followup To:
Add Cc | Add Followup-to | Edit Subject
Subject:
Validation:
For verification purposes please type the characters you see in the picture below or the numbers you hear by clicking the accessibility icon. Listen and type the numbers you hear
 
Jish Karoshi  
View profile  
 More options Apr 17 2001, 4:27 am
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ruby
From: "Jish Karoshi" <karoshij...@hotmail.com>
Date: Tue, 17 Apr 2001 16:59:06 +0900
Local: Tues, Apr 17 2001 3:59 am
Subject: Re: methods and types
Print | View thread | Show original | Report this message | Find messages by this author

Dave Thomas wrote:
>This is not a thing that can be argued rationally. I was a strong-
>typing advocate for years, and was nervous when I used languages such
>as Smalltalk and Ruby. However, I now find Java a very frustrating
>language to use, and find myself writing higher-quality code in
>Ruby. In the end, the only way to find out is to try it for yourself
>and see. Write some Ruby code, and wait until you experience that
>a-ha! moment. Then write some more code until you start developing an
>idiomatic style. Get comfortable with RubyUnit or Lapidary. Then take
>on a largish project, and see what you thing.

I am busily learning ruby, and I see some things that I like or
I wouldn't bother asking questions.  My problem is that I can't
really do what you suggest about taking on a largish project and
see what I think.  I need to be reasonably sure that something
is going to be workable before I commit resources to it.  I have
seen enough ruby already to agree with people here that ruby is
probably more enjoyable to code in than java or c.  But I can't
make design decisions for projects based on whats more enjoyable.
Well, somewhat I can, but you know what I mean.

I want my team to start using ruby instead of perl for all the
various odds and ends tasks that perl gets used for now.  I have
seen enough perl code to last me a lifetime.  Good code in perl
is fine, but there's something about bad code in perl thats worse
than bad code in other languages, something very HP-Lovecraft-
mad-servants-of-the-elder-gods-chattering-in-the-extradimensional-
insect-language kind of bad that makes my head hurt when I have
to read it.  Which is why I started looking at ruby in the first
place.
I am just very curious to know what tools and what methods people
use to successfully implement medium sized projects in ruby.  More
specifically, if we changed from java to ruby for a 20-30 man year
project, what would we need to change in our design process and
our other tools in order to end up on schedule with a robust system?
Do tools even exist that can cope with ruby?  We use rational for
UML etc, and mercury for testing currently.
This is why I asked about the argument types question in the first
place, because it seems like it would force a change in the way
you do things when you design and iterate, and I want to know what
those changes are so I can make an informed choice.

I know thats a really broad question, and I appreciate the time you
and others have already taken to try to enlighten me.  I guess what
I am looking for in a nutshell is a pointer to the method that
works best with ruby.  Thanks,

- jish

_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com


 
You must Sign in before you can post messages.
To post a message you must first join this group.
Please update your nickname on the subscription settings page before posting.
You do not have the permission required to post.
Create a group - Google Groups - Google Home - Terms of Service - Privacy Policy
©2013 Google