3 ms·

Or as Avdi has rightly pointed out, it means that the language is not conducive for tooling. Tools have to operate on the static representation of code, and the

by jasim 11y ago

Or as Avdi has rightly pointed out, it means that the language is not conducive for tooling. Tools have to operate on the static representation of code, and the more it diverges from runtime reality, the harder it becomes to understand the codebase structurally. The extreme opposite of all this would be Kotlin, which was built from the ground-up to have first-class IDE support.

saosebastiao 11y ago
In retrospect my statement may have come off as a claim to an absolute truth, but I didn't mean it that way. It is entirely possible for Ruby to be in a sweet spot of needing better tools but the language doesn't facilitate their existence. I just was explaining how a lack of tooling isn't necessarily (or even commonly) a bad thing.
- catnaroek 11y ago
  Sweet or bitter?