|
and I could probably write an entire book ripping to shreds the stupid things in that 100 lines of code.
And yes, you really only find this level of BS in people who write Ruby. For all that I complain about other C# code I've had to work on, you rarely see abuses like this. Yes, it can happen, but Ruby has a particular knack for "creating stupid."
Marc
|
|
|
|
|
So Ruby is the new VB!
Never underestimate the power of human stupidity
RAH
|
|
|
|
|
Mycroft Holmes wrote: So Ruby is the new VB!
Basically. 
I think that pretty much sums it up. It's advertised as a language you can learn really quickly, and so you see a lot of bad practices, no understanding of OO concepts, etc.
Marc
|
|
|
|
|
I can say it no better than the Kaiser Chiefs
Quote: There is nothing I need
except the function to breathe
But I'm not really fussed
Doesn't matter to me
[Chorus:]
Ruby, Ruby, Ruby, Ruby
Do you, do you, do you, do you
Know what you're doing, doing, to me
Ruby, Ruby, Ruby, Ruby
PooperPig - Coming Soon
|
|
|
|
|
So it does not meet the goal:
Wikipedia Ruby is said to follow the principle of least astonishment (POLA), meaning that the language should behave in such a way as to minimize confusion for experienced users.
Peter Wasser
"The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts." - Bertrand Russell
|
|
|
|
|
pwasser wrote: meaning that the language should behave in such a way as to minimize confusion for experienced users.
That's a joke. The abuse of "method_missing", allowing people to write extensions to classes, creates unknown side-effects. OOP is not really implemented in Ruby, it sort of looks OO, but it isn't, and when extending classes with include/extend/require/inherit/load (I can't keep it straight what does what) you get a mess of additional behaviors. C#'s "partial" was tolerable in separating out UI initialization from event handlers and has uses in other ways too, but Ruby really allows the programmer to makes a mess of things.
Marc
|
|
|
|
|
More importantly, since the winform designer loves to randomly reorder its generated code even when you're not touching the designer itself, it shifts a huge cluster elephant of diff noise out of the files I care about 95% of the time.
Did you ever see history portrayed as an old man with a wise brow and pulseless heart, waging all things in the balance of reason?
Is not rather the genius of history like an eternal, imploring maiden, full of fire, with a burning heart and flaming soul, humanly warm and humanly beautiful?
--Zachris Topelius
Training a telescope on one’s own belly button will only reveal lint. You like that? You go right on staring at it. I prefer looking at galaxies.
-- Sarah Hoyt
|
|
|
|
|
Dan Neely wrote: it shifts a huge cluster elephant of diff noise out of the files I care about 95% of the time.
Exactly!
And then, ironically, I saw "partial" abused by programmers, oh, let's write these methods here, those methods there, so that our class is smaller and it looks better, and we can just extend our class by adding another file defining a partial class! 
Marc
|
|
|
|
|
Quote: Ruby has a particular knack for "creating stupid."
And we all know that you just cannot fix stupid.
|
|
|
|
|
Message Closed
modified 21-Nov-20 21:01pm.
|
|
|
|
|
Leandro Taset wrote: Y U no post it?!
Because these are worthy of a real blog post, which I'll do soon enough.
Marc
|
|
|
|
|
You could try COBOL... They say a PICture is worth a thousand words, but in my experience, one PICTURE takes a thousand Hollerith cards. Admit it, Marc; for all its warts, Ruby is far better than that old crap. Yeah, I grumble when I see what a mess some people make of what should be a straightforward task (save a Word document as HTML sometime, if you really want to see 'ugly'), but even an old curmudgeon like me has to admit to the vast improvement in development tools and languages (C++ excepted - it still sucks, with or without MFC). I'm curious, though, as to what got you to looking at that stuff in the first place? You don't strike me as the masochist type.
Will Rogers never met me.
|
|
|
|
|
Marc's taken up a new contract - they use Ruby.
|
|
|
|
|
That's scary. Marc's one of the good guys, and deserves better!
Will Rogers never met me.
|
|
|
|
|
Roger Wright wrote: That's scary. Marc's one of the good guys, and deserves better!
Well, to the company's credit, this is code that they've inherited, and from what I've seen so far, I'm working with a bunch of really smart people, so I'm looking forward to expanding my knowledge as well. Plus, they also do .NET development, so hopefully one day I'll be able to move onto a project in that arena, but right now, they have a pressing need for some Rails work.
Marc
|
|
|
|
|
Pete O'Hanlon wrote: Marc's taken up a new contract
Shhhh! 
Marc
|
|
|
|
|
I take it this is the start of your new contract.
|
|
|
|
|
I assume this is work related. Maybe, the new gig you got. If so, this could be why they hired you. To right the wrongs that have plagued them.
Good luck, and may the force be with you.
|
|
|
|
|
Slacker007 wrote: Good luck, and may the force be with you.
Thanks! It'll be a journey. Smart people though, that I'm working with. (the code base is inherited) So that helps to balance things out.
Marc
|
|
|
|
|
News[^]
Never watched the show, but the guy was a fan of Irish Wolfhounds, which my family loves.
RIP. ![Rose | [Rose]](https://www.codeproject.com/script/Forums/Images/rose.gif)
What do you get when you cross a joke with a rhetorical question?
---
The metaphorical solid rear-end expulsions have impacted the metaphorical motorized bladed rotating air movement mechanism.
---
Do questions with multiple question marks annoy you???
|
|
|
|
|
Wait - you never watched the show - you never watched The Simpsons?
D'oh!
[sic]
|
|
|
|
|
Nope, not once. Animated american humour just never seemed to click for me.
Never underestimate the power of human stupidity
RAH
|
|
|
|
|
I don't watch much TV so I can't really tell what's the typical american humor shown there but (being German) I love The Simpsons. As you haven't seen a single episode I think you should give it a chance 
|
|
|
|
|
The very few times I have hit it while channel surfing have done nothing to encourage me to watch an entire episode.
Never underestimate the power of human stupidity
RAH
|
|
|
|
|
Brisingr Aerowing wrote: Never watched the show
(Many years ago) I was expecting it to be the typical over-hyped US drivel, but I was at a mate's house when the "Be Sharps" episode came on, and I was thereafter hooked.
Um, except that I don't watch it, any more.
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
