On Fri, 18 Aug 2006 12:30:14 +0200, Just Another Victim of the Ambient  
Morality <ihatespam / rogers.com> wrote:

>
> "David Vallner" <david / vallner.net> wrote in message
> news:op.teg4b0gclyznzu / new.chello.sk...
>> On Fri, 18 Aug 2006 09:58:31 +0200, Firstname Surname
>> <rubyforum / wendlink.com> wrote:
>>> the checker could easily check
>>> based on 'standard' expected syntax and be more helpful about error
>>> location 99% of the time.
>>
>> That's what a lint style program would do, not the compiler. Compilers
>> are  there to check correctness against the formal language definition,
>> not to  make opinions about your code, and quoting James Britt: Ruby
>> assumes the  developer is a grown-up. If you're newbly enough to make
>> trivial syntax  errors, noone's forcing you to use the language.
>
>     That's sufficiently harsh that it's rather unfair.
>     Okay, so you fed the interpeter bad input but, you know what?  Good
> software tells you why your input was bad and the original poster isn't
> getting the feedback he was hoping to get.  Now, perhaps his expectations
> aren't realistic but you can simply tell him why they're not realistic
> rather than effectively telling him that he just sucks...
>
>     Personally, I don't think there's anything wrong with protecting code
> from human error considering how it's written for humans.  Ruby still has
> access permissions.  If Ruby really trusted the programmer, it wouldn't
> bother with public and private methods.  If you're not supposed to call
> that method, then don't call it!  It's that simple.  That's what Python
> does...
>
>
>> If you think the syntax checking in the compiler could be made better,  
>> go
>> ahead and hack the parser to do it. But I don't recall this topic being
>> present on the list and complained about any often or so vocally, so I
>> doubt it's critical that effort be spent from the core Ruby developer
>> team  in that direction.
>
>     Well, it may be true that we have better things to do (I, too, have
> never encountered the problems the original poster is having), but he's
> simply telling us what he finds important.  If enough people complained
> about it, I'd imagine work would be done on the problem...
>
>
>> Oh, before I forget: Whining gets you nowhere, and trolling belongs to
>> slashdot. Cut that out.
>
>     You could cut him some slack.  It's pretty easy to get frustrated  
> with
> these stupid machines.  A lot of things really should "just work" and it
> can get frustrating when they don't, especially after everyone  
> proselytizes
> it as the solution to all their problems...
>
>
>
>
>