On 06/02/2011 21:30, Jacob Carlborg wrote:
On 2011-02-06 20:59, Walter Bright wrote:
Jacob Carlborg wrote:
On 2011-02-04 20:33, Walter Bright wrote:
so wrote:
It doesn't matter what signature you use for the function, compiler is
aware and will output an error when you do the opposite of the
signature. If this is the case, why do we need that signature?
Examine the API of a function in a library. It says it doesn't modify
anything reachable through its arguments, but is that true? How would
you know? And how would you know if the API doc doesn't say?
You'd fall back to const by convention, and that is not reliable and
does not scale.
This is quite interesting, I generally agree with this but on the
other hand Ruby on Rails is basically built on conventions, it works
out very well and I love it.
I'm not tapped into the ruby community, but I've heard some scuttlebutt
that usage of ruby is declining in large systems because ruby seems to
have problems with large systems due to "monkey patching" and other
cowboying that ruby encourages.
Maybe, I have no idea. Although I noticed myself that I wanted to have
static typing in Ruby a couple of times.
Problems with large systems? Wanting to use static typing?
Well, there is a solution to that, but it is even a more radical kind of
a monkey patch: basically you remove 100% of the Ruby runtime and
install and use Java and Java frameworks instead... ;)
--
Bruno Medeiros - Software Engineer
