4 ms·
Not really. It's hard for your editor to do this statically, but there's heaps of good tooling for finding the method source and docs dynamically. pry> show-
by nfm 9y ago
Not really. It's hard for your editor to do this statically, but there's heaps of good tooling for finding the method source and docs dynamically.
pry> show-source SomeClass.class_method
pry> show-source AnotherClass#instance_method
# List an arbitrary object's class methods, instance methods, methods mixed in by included modules
pry> cd some_object
pry> ls
The runtime knows how to execute your program (it's not random) so everything you want to know is available.
- dmitriid 9y agoYou realise you just validated my point, right? :)
- stouset 9y agoI'm not sure you did. People who don't use Ruby seem to think this is a huge thing that you run into constantly. It's not. People are for the most part pretty responsible with these things.
- JohnBooty 9y agoBeen doing Ruby full-time for 3+ years, bunch of experience before that. there's heaps of good tooling for finding the method source and docs dynamically I know, but this is a huge problem with a lot of code I see in the wild because this stuff is (ab)used so widely in Ruby-land. If I have to run code just to see where `Foo.bar` is defined, that makes things... about an order of magnitude harder to understand. I mean, that's really tough thing to do in anything but a trivial codebase. This is nearly 100% the fault of developers, not the language itself, but I would suspect that most Ruby developers spend a significant amount of time dealing with things like this because it's how the ecosystem rolls.