On Wed, 2003-08-13 at 14:03, Lothar Scholz wrote:

> Have you ever spend more then a few minutes to think about the
> problems with refactoring in script languages and especially with
> ruby ?
> 
> I guess you didn't.
> 
> The fexibility of languages like ruby makes it impossible to ever
> write something like intellij. And it is not a parser problem. I can
> write a full ruby parser in a weekend, but this would give me no clue
> about the behaviour.

This is an interesting assertion considering that the original
refactoring browser was written for Smalltalk which certainly is no
slouch when it comes to flexibility.  So I would guess that a number of
refactorings would be possible, certainly enough to be useful.

I can see certain refactorings being more difficult in a Duck Typed
language, e.g. renaming a method (how do you if *this* use of a method
is one to be changed).  

Here's a question to folks that have used both the Smalltalk refactoring
browser and one of the Java IDEs (e.g. IntelliJ or Eclipse):  In what
ways did refactoring support differ between the two languages?

-- 
-- Jim Weirich       jweirich / one.net      http://onestepback.org
-----------------------------------------------------------------
"Beware of bugs in the above code; I have only proved it correct, 
not tried it." -- Donald Knuth (in a memo to Peter van Emde Boas)