Leon Rosenberg wrote: > I rather ment things like interception/reflection or/and AOP :-) > Ah.
Lots of reflection. AOP is being actively discussed for Ruby2. Pure-Ruby implementations for simple AOP exist but I've not used them. > Pardon me for being devils advocate, but how do you measure it? > Talking about the codebase, are you talking about functional code or > whole code? I agree that 20-30% of java code is dump (getters/setters > and so on) but dump code is generated by an IDE so it's not an issue. > How fast are "fast" development cycles? > Well, I have measured things in various ways. Codebase size: yep, my IDE will generate a lot, and this makes Java bearable. But the code is still there; just because I don't type it doesn't mean I don't have to comprehend it. Character-wise my Ruby/RoR code is about 1/3-1/2 the size of feature-comparable J2EE apps. That's a lot less "stuff" I have to look at even if it was auto-generated. Development time: I've coded both J2EE=>RoR and RoR=>J2EE. I've coded just RoR and just J2EE apps. It usually takes me about 1/2 the time to code an RoR application, but that's just an average. If I was more adept with AppFuse (or Trails, I still don't remember which is which) I suspect the timing would be more similar. > As far as I understand you have no strong typing, right? > That is correct at this point. Obviously you can check types within a method. Dynamic- vs. strong-typing is one of those arguments that has gone, and will go, on forever. I think strong typing is great for large, distributed teams of generally average programmers. I think dynamic typing is great for smaller, "better" development teams, and compiler optimization. For instance, in Common Lisp I'll often write stuff with no thought of typing then as development progresses I'll add typing info. The canonical "Languages for the Masses" vs. "Languages for Smart People" article is at: http://www.paulgraham.com/vanlfsp.html It's somewhat deliberately provocative, but interesting. Another consideration for me, at least, is that Ruby "feels" better. Part of that is simply personality, part of it is that it's quite a bit more like what I'm used to (SmallTalk, Lisp, Forth). I have a LOT more fun programming in Ruby than Java. This is an intangible, but an important one for me. Bear in mind that I still recommend PHP for large-scale production sites, but I am slowly using RoR for more small-ish sites. Dave --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
