On Sat, 29 Jan 2005 19:40:52 +0900, Keith P. Boruff
<kboruff / optonline.net> wrote:
> 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!
> 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.

Which isn't what was said. So far, I have refactored thousands of
lines of Ruby code with simple cut-and-paste operations, not with
expensive, extensive tools.

-austin
-- 
Austin Ziegler * halostatue / gmail.com
               * Alternate: austin / halostatue.ca