Keith P. Boruff wrote:
> Mark Sparshatt wrote:
> 
> 
>> --- "Keith P. Boruff" <kboruff / optonline.net> wrote:
>>
>>>But.... if you think Ruby is impervious to needing
>>>any refactoring because
>>>it's less "verbose" than other languages, I would
>>>not agree.
>>>
>>
>>I don't think people are claiming that Ruby programs
>>never need to be refactored but rather that since
>>they're less verbose refactoring is easier, so that
>>you don't need the same heavyweight refactoring tools
>>that languages like C++ and Java require
> 
> 
> Actually, C++ is so verbose that to my knowledge, no one has been able to
> successfully create an automated refactoring tool for it. If someone knows
> otherwise and can provide a link, I'd appreciate it since I greatly need
> one. 
> 
> Refactoring is simply a process of changing the structure of your code
> without changing the way it behaves. When you do any refactoring,
> obviously, you have to do a regression test to make sure nothing has
> changed. As I'm sure you know, when you change code, you introduce the
> possibility of "bugging" your code. 
> 
> Why does one refactor? Basically to improve the design and make it more
> readable to humans. Tell me that you didn't write something in Ruby that
> you later changed because you thought the change would produce a better
> design. We all do it... we've all done it... in many languages. That's
> refactoring. 


I'm pretty sure most people participating in this thread know what 
refactoring is, and have read, or at least are aware of, Fowler's book, 
though they may not all have quite the same take on it, nor have the 
same view on the topic.

I'd also venture to guess that most people view this thread as a 
discussion, not a debate.  At least, that's my preference.  Debates have 
a habit of spinning off into "I'm right, you're wrong" absolutism that 
gets in the way of listening.



James