4 ms·

FTA: "But even after borrowing as much as we can from Ruby, it isn’t going to make the gigantic complicated sales management system for a Fortune 500 company be

by LargeWu 16y ago

FTA: "But even after borrowing as much as we can from Ruby, it isn’t going to make the gigantic complicated sales management system for a Fortune 500 company be not gigantic and complicated. Hopefully it will be a slightly smaller and more simple, but that application is never going to be so simple that you don’t need an IDE or intellisense. " This is just nonsense. I used to be a .NET developer before I jumped to Ruby. The Rails application I develop on now has well over 1000 class files, plus all the associated views, etc. It's at least as complex as this mythical, undefined "enterprise application" ( a meaningless distinction) the author speaks of, and our team of 4 manages just fine using text editors. The only reason Intellisense is needed in .NET is because it's such a verbose language. If you want to open a file in .NET, you've got to create a FileStream object, and then a StreamReader object, and blah blah blah and before you know it you've got a dozen lines of code. In Ruby, you type "File.open(filename)". Done! Ruby just gets out of your way, whereas .NET is often an obstacle in the way of what you want to accomplish.

m0th87 16y ago
What about System.IO.File.ReadAllText(path); ? That said, even if the language required more than one line to read a file, that wouldn't be a good example of a language being verbose. That would be an example of a missing shortcut in the standard library, which is an important distinction (the latter is much easier to fix than the former.)
timrobinson 16y ago
File.Open - http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/b9skfh7s.aspx http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/b9skfh7s.aspx There's a subtlety to API design -- and naming in particular -- that's separate from writing the code and getting it to work. You can get by in .NET development with classes like ObjectFactoryManagerBase, and rely on Intellisense (or, worse, copy & paste); or you can put some up-front thought into designing a usable set of components and giving them clear names.
city41 16y ago
> Ruby just gets out of your way, whereas .NET is often an obstacle in the way of what you want to accomplish. To .NET's defense, Microsoft seems to be very aware of this. New features in .NET and C# are specifically designed to get out of your way. The language's verbosity is definitely on the decline. It's nowhere near Ruby's level, but for a mainstream, "Fortune 500" platform, it really isn't half bad.

by LargeWu 16y ago

m0th87 16y ago

What about System.IO.File.ReadAllText(path); ? That said, even if the language required more than one line to read a file, that wouldn't be a good example of a language being verbose. That would be an example of a missing shortcut in the standard library, which is an important distinction (the latter is much easier to fix than the former.)

timrobinson 16y ago

File.Open - http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/b9skfh7s.aspx http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/b9skfh7s.aspx There's a subtlety to API design -- and naming in particular -- that's separate from writing the code and getting it to work. You can get by in .NET development with classes like ObjectFactoryManagerBase, and rely on Intellisense (or, worse, copy & paste); or you can put some up-front thought into designing a usable set of components and giving them clear names.

city41 16y ago

> Ruby just gets out of your way, whereas .NET is often an obstacle in the way of what you want to accomplish. To .NET's defense, Microsoft seems to be very aware of this. New features in .NET and C# are specifically designed to get out of your way. The language's verbosity is definitely on the decline. It's nowhere near Ruby's level, but for a mainstream, "Fortune 500" platform, it really isn't half bad.