Hi --

On Mon, 2 Jun 2008, Eleanor McHugh wrote:

> On 2 Jun 2008, at 12:10, Robert Klemme wrote:
>> You could even say that static typing conveys a false sense of safety
>> (which could lead you to neglect testing) whereas this effect does not
>> happen with "uncertain" (aka "dynamic") languages.
>
> As is often the case on big C++ and Java projects where complexity (in the 
> form of uncertainty over requirement correctness) is a dominant factor.
>
>> I am not sure about DbC languages such as Eiffel.  These go much
>> further in defining semantics and you cannot easily violate assertions
>> that they provide, i.e. you get more safety than just static types.  I
>> have always wanted to work with Eiffel but unfortunately never found
>> the time. Also, from what I read it would feel a bit like a
>> straitjacket - and given the option I much more prefer Ruby to get
>> things done. :-)
>
> I've played with DbC by convention on embedded projects where the overhead 
> was much less than the reward, but my attempts to get into Eiffel always fall 
> foul of a low boredom threshold (as is the case with Ada). I guess like most 
> hackers I'm lazy, and languages like Ruby allow that laziness to be 
> productive ;)

I took an extended look at Eiffel 10 or 12 years ago, and thought it
was very cool, in ways that are almost diametrically opposed to Ruby's
coolness, of course. I've always thought Eiffel would be a good
alternate name for Ruby, though, because apparently the Eiffel tower
is lighter than the cylinder of air that contains it (!) and I think
of Ruby as having that quality of more power than can be accounted for
by what you actually see. (Or something.) But it's also a good name
for Eiffel, for other reasons.


David

-- 
Rails training from David A. Black and Ruby Power and Light:
   INTRO TO RAILS         June 9-12            Berlin
   ADVANCING WITH RAILS   June 16-19           Berlin
See http://www.rubypal.com for details and updates!