Comments on: My Frustrations with REXML: Ruby’s Standard Library for Reading/Writing XML http://enfranchisedmind.com/blog/posts/rexml-dynamic-typing-lose/ programming, politics, & other religious issues Mon, 15 Mar 2010 00:31:40 +0000 hourly 1 By: Ruby is the Future http://enfranchisedmind.com/blog/posts/rexml-dynamic-typing-lose/#comment-37192 Ruby is the Future Sun, 31 Jan 2010 04:05:33 +0000 http://enfranchisedmind.com/blog/2008/03/24/my-frustrations-with-rexml-rubys-standard-library-for-readingwriting-xml-or-rubys-problem-is-its-type-system-and-dont-try-to-tell-me-otherwise/#comment-37192 [...] a whole lifetime of ranting against it (cite, cite, cite, cite), I finally have to eat my words, come out, and say it: Ruby is the language of the [...] [...] a whole lifetime of ranting against it (cite, cite, cite, cite), I finally have to eat my words, come out, and say it: Ruby is the language of the [...]

]]> By: Enfranchised Mind » April Fails or April Fools Epic Win? On “Ruby is the Future” http://enfranchisedmind.com/blog/posts/rexml-dynamic-typing-lose/#comment-36523 Enfranchised Mind » April Fails or April Fools Epic Win? On “Ruby is the Future” Fri, 24 Jul 2009 14:56:39 +0000 http://enfranchisedmind.com/blog/2008/03/24/my-frustrations-with-rexml-rubys-standard-library-for-readingwriting-xml-or-rubys-problem-is-its-type-system-and-dont-try-to-tell-me-otherwise/#comment-36523 [...] more sane way to apply them — some way to apply them and still have the confidence of knowing the language’s standard library distribution wasn’t hosed by someone forgetting to check.... I suspect that kind of thinking is behind Duby, and it’s certainly what’s behind [...] [...] more sane way to apply them — some way to apply them and still have the confidence of knowing the language’s standard library distribution wasn’t hosed by someone forgetting to check…. I suspect that kind of thinking is behind Duby, and it’s certainly what’s behind [...]

]]> By: Ronin 0.2.1 “notashellscript” released « House of Postmodern http://enfranchisedmind.com/blog/posts/rexml-dynamic-typing-lose/#comment-34234 Ronin 0.2.1 “notashellscript” released « House of Postmodern Wed, 25 Feb 2009 02:21:52 +0000 http://enfranchisedmind.com/blog/2008/03/24/my-frustrations-with-rexml-rubys-standard-library-for-readingwriting-xml-or-rubys-problem-is-its-type-system-and-dont-try-to-tell-me-otherwise/#comment-34234 [...] “notashellscript”, had a couple but still important changes. Ronin 0.2.1 has dropped REXML in favour of Nokogiri for XML support. Nokogiri brings faster XML/HTML parsing and building to [...] [...] “notashellscript”, had a couple but still important changes. Ronin 0.2.1 has dropped REXML in favour of Nokogiri for XML support. Nokogiri brings faster XML/HTML parsing and building to [...]

]]> By: Robert Fischer http://enfranchisedmind.com/blog/posts/rexml-dynamic-typing-lose/#comment-33822 Robert Fischer Sat, 08 Nov 2008 02:06:39 +0000 http://enfranchisedmind.com/blog/2008/03/24/my-frustrations-with-rexml-rubys-standard-library-for-readingwriting-xml-or-rubys-problem-is-its-type-system-and-dont-try-to-tell-me-otherwise/#comment-33822 I do agree with you there -- insofar as static typing is less pain that unit testing, it stands to reason that it should be adopted earlier. I do agree with you there — insofar as static typing is less pain that unit testing, it stands to reason that it should be adopted earlier.

]]> By: Brian http://enfranchisedmind.com/blog/posts/rexml-dynamic-typing-lose/#comment-33820 Brian Fri, 07 Nov 2008 22:52:20 +0000 http://enfranchisedmind.com/blog/2008/03/24/my-frustrations-with-rexml-rubys-standard-library-for-readingwriting-xml-or-rubys-problem-is-its-type-system-and-dont-try-to-tell-me-otherwise/#comment-33820 Granted- there is a point where static typing isn't worth it. There's a lot of code that people write that doesn't need to be statically typed- or unit tested. I mean, when you type "find . -name \*.ml | xargs grep -l foobar" into the command line, you've written a little program. Is it worth statically typing it? No. Nor is it worth unit testing it, I comment. It goes higher than that, as well- build scripts, sysadmin style scripting, etc., don't benefit much if at all from typing, and unit testing. My point is that the benefits of static typing go much farther down the hierarchy than most people think. Given that static typing (with type inference and a real type system- i.e. Ocaml/Haskell style static typing) is cheap (in terms of programmer time), it should actually be used <EM>before</EM> unit testing (which is relatively expensive in terms of programmer time). Certainly, by the time you're writing unit tests, you should be statically typing (IMHO). Granted- there is a point where static typing isn’t worth it. There’s a lot of code that people write that doesn’t need to be statically typed- or unit tested. I mean, when you type “find . -name \*.ml | xargs grep -l foobar” into the command line, you’ve written a little program. Is it worth statically typing it? No. Nor is it worth unit testing it, I comment. It goes higher than that, as well- build scripts, sysadmin style scripting, etc., don’t benefit much if at all from typing, and unit testing.

My point is that the benefits of static typing go much farther down the hierarchy than most people think. Given that static typing (with type inference and a real type system- i.e. Ocaml/Haskell style static typing) is cheap (in terms of programmer time), it should actually be used before unit testing (which is relatively expensive in terms of programmer time). Certainly, by the time you’re writing unit tests, you should be statically typing (IMHO).

]]>