------art_2667_10232894.1146753141683
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Disposition: inline

On 5/4/06, James Edward Gray II <james / grayproductions.net> wrote:
>
> On May 4, 2006, at 8:19 AM, David Pollak wrote:
>
> >   - Instiki was written by someone who was not an 'idiot chef' but a
> >   skilled Ruby programmer.
>
> I'm pretty sure DHH has claimed publicly that he didn't think we was
> a terrific Ruby programmer when he invented Rails and that would have
> been after he invented Instiki.


But whether he claimed it or not I think we can all agree he's pretty good!
Better than me anyway.

>   - Instiki was written using Rails... the "way" to write web apps in
> >   Ruby.
>
> Instiki has been ported to Rails recently.  It use to be a stand-
> alone application.  To my knowledge, the port was done by Instiki's
> new maintainer, not DHH.


But we're getting away from the issue aren't we?
The issue seems to be: should execution behaviour change with the
order of require statements in a program? Is it sufficient to have Ruby
warn us that a method is being redefined?


> If I wanted a solution to the wiki issue and I didn't want bugs,
> > I'd install
> > a PHP or Perl based package.
>
> Right, because Perl is definitely not a dynamic language like Ruby.
> It's so readable too, I'm sure a lot less mistakes are made with it.
> Good point.


AFAIR Perl's require also allows redefinition of the world. If David is
saying
that Perl is easier to write bug free code in, he's wrong in my experience.

------art_2667_10232894.1146753141683--