* Keith P. Boruff <kboruff / optonline.net> [0153 14:53]:
> Mark Sparshatt wrote:

> > 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. 
 
No ones' arguing against refactoring, i think you've got your wires crossed.

You're mistaking the absence of refactoring browsers as an indication that
rubyists don't like to refactor.

One of the big sellers of a dynamically-typed language is that it makes
refactoring extremely easy. 

It's harder in statically typed languages (my main experience was in Java),
hence the buttload of refactoring tools. 

'we don (desperately) need no steenkin refactoring *tools*' , the last
word being the important one....

Well, I'm sure they are handy, but I've never needed one in two years of ruby,
whereas I'd have been stuffed without them in Java.

-- 
'Everybody I know who is right always agrees with ME.'
		-- Rev Lady Mal
Rasputin :: Jack of All Trades - Master of Nuns