jgbailey: > >From a recent interview[1] with the guy leading Ruby development on > .NET at Microsoft: > > "You spend less time writing software than you spend maintaining > software. Optimizing for writing software versus maintaining software > is probably the wrong thing to do. Static typing makes it harder to > maintain software because it's harder to change it." > > Two years ago I would have agreed with that statement. Now - no way. > Make the compiler work for you. I've done a lot of Ruby development > and I would never use it for a project of more than 3 or 4 people. > It's an awesome language but I don't think it would scale to > programming "in the large." Any object can be modified at any time. > Determining where a particular method comes from can be an exercise in > Sherlockian deduction. Give an organization of 100 developers that > much freedom and I can only imagine chaos would result. > > Justin
Agreed, maintainability is all about restricting the damage people can do, and making refactoring safer :) The kind of havoc a new programmer can create in a pure, strongly typed, polymorphic chunk of code is tiny compared to an "anything goes" language scenario. -- Don _______________________________________________ Haskell-Cafe mailing list Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe