std.xml should just go

[Jacob Carlborg]

On 2011-02-06 20:59, Walter Bright wrote:
> Jacob Carlborg wrote:
>> On 2011-02-04 20:33, Walter Bright wrote:
>>> so wrote:
>>>> It doesn't matter what signature you use for the function, compiler is
>>>> aware and will output an error when you do the opposite of the
>>>> signature. If this is the case, why do we need that signature?
>>>
>>>
>>> Examine the API of a function in a library. It says it doesn't modify
>>> anything reachable through its arguments, but is that true? How would
>>> you know? And how would you know if the API doc doesn't say?
>>>
>>> You'd fall back to const by convention, and that is not reliable and
>>> does not scale.
>>
>> This is quite interesting, I generally agree with this but on the
>> other hand Ruby on Rails is basically built on conventions, it works
>> out very well and I love it.
>
> I'm not tapped into the ruby community, but I've heard some scuttlebutt
> that usage of ruby is declining in large systems because ruby seems to
> have problems with large systems due to "monkey patching" and other
> cowboying that ruby encourages.

Maybe, I have no idea. Although I noticed myself that I wanted to have 
static typing in Ruby a couple of times.

-- 
/Jacob Carlborg