What is the general philosophy around logging in ruby? I haven't heard 
much regarding it.

Also, from what you write, as a rough metric you are 4 times more 
productive in Ruby then Java. Is that an accurate summation?

Also, I'd be interested in you general perception of IDEs vs. 
classic-Unix tool chains when dealing with inherited, convoluted Java 
code with poor logging and no tests.

Thanks,
Nick

Dave Thomas wrote:

>
> On May 13, 2004, at 10:28, Its Me wrote:
>
>>     In terms of net productivity at the end of the day/month/year,
>>     how does developing in Ruby without a rich set of integrated
>>     development tools compare to developing in (say) Java with the
>>     full set of tools provided by (say) Eclipse?
>>
>> I think of "Net productivity" as some combination of how quickly I 
>> can have
>> a solid-enough solution to a medium sized problem, and how 
>> effectively I can
>> evolve that solution over time.
>
>
> Interesting question, but I think it contains some assumptions that 
> might be questioned.
>
> When I develop larger Ruby applications (10,000+ lines), I just use an 
> editor, one that has the ability to execute shell commands. So, a 
> development cycle is typically
>
> 1. Edit a few lines
> 2. Write a test
> 3. Hit F11 to run all the tests
> 4. if (rand < .9) go back to 1
> 5. Try out the application
> 6. Goto 1
>
> If it's a web application, then step 5 basically means hitting refresh 
> on the browser session I leave running: my checked out CVS directory 
> will be symlinked into Apache's tree, so I just run the code I'm editing.
>
> The only think I miss from an IDE is the ability to check the callers 
> of a method: I have to run grep from inside my editor to do that.
>
> I haven't used a debugger in 5+ years, so I'm not sure what I'm 
> missing that would make me more productive in an IDE. The last time I 
> went on a serious Ruby coding streak, I churned out 35kloc in 6 weeks.
>
>
> Cheers
>
> Dave
>
>