William Djaja Tjokroaminata <billtj / z.glue.umd.edu> writes:

> For a large team, the story is different.  I don't want the whole project
> goes awry just because a person has a pointer error.  (In this regard Java
> is much better, because there is no pointer).  Do you really think that we
> can assemble 100 people now to write a single, large, Ruby application, 
> and not expecting performance and bug problems?

No, but then again I don't think I could assemble a team of 100 java
programmers and not expect performance and bug problems.

I also believe that Java is also a runtime-typed language, and that
its static typing is to some extent illusory.

   http://www.pragmaticprogrammer.com/cgi-local/pragprog?JavaIsUntyped

And I believe that using something like Ruby means that the scope of
what's possible for a small team goes up dramatically.  Rather than
having to have limitations in place to prevent the "one person with a
pointer error" in a team of 20, we can instead have a good team of 3
people using Ruby, achieving the same result.

Of course, there are other factors involved. I still use Java in many
projects, because clients need certain libraries or certain other
constraints. But for the rest of the time, I get significantly better
productivity and equally low bug rates using Ruby.

Ultimately this isn't an argument that can be won on a mailing list.
You'll have to get out there and _write_ a 20,000 line Ruby
application.  Write it in real Ruby, not using your C-based stuff, nor
using SRuby.  Write it using unit tests.  Just try it.  And then tell
us what you think.


Cheers


Dave