std.xml should just go

[Bruno Medeiros]

On 06/02/2011 21:30, Jacob Carlborg wrote:
> 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.
>

Problems with large systems? Wanting to use static typing?

Well, there is a solution to that, but it is even a more radical kind of 
a monkey patch: basically you remove 100% of the Ruby runtime and 
install and use Java and Java frameworks instead... ;)

-- 
Bruno Medeiros - Software Engineer