Curt Hibbs wrote:

> Keith P. Boruff wrote:
>>
>> If code is duplicated hundreds of times in a project, it's hardly
>> the fault
>> of the programming language.
> 
> In the case of C++, it *is* the fault of the language. A class name (and
> its superclass name) is *required* by the language to be duplicated. In
> the case of the class name, its duplicated once for every method defined
> in the class!
> 
> Curt

Well, in the case of C++, I'll agree. I have to deal with this crap language
(sometimes I like it)for a living and understand its frustrations. Just the
dependency issues along.... sigh. I think I see where you're coming from. 

But.... if you think Ruby is impervious to needing any refactoring because
it's less "verbose" than other languages, I would not agree. 

KPB