Volkmann, Mark wrote:
In the same way, I don’t often see the wrong kind of object being used
in Ruby. However, to ensure that, I have to exercise the various paths
through the code, so I rely on unit tests to give me the confidence
that my code is reasonable.
Would you agree that with Ruby you have to write more unit tests than you do
in Java? You need to test that the types of parameters being passed to every
method are what was expected. It seems that this would cut into the
productivity gains in writing the actual code when compared to Java.
You rarely want to write unit tests that test the type directly, like
"object.kind_of?(Type)". Instead, if the object actually has the methods
required for it to work (which the other unit tests already show), then
why limit your code to just one type?
For example, instead of requireing an argument of type Array, you often
will do with any object that responds to . Write the unit tests so
that they show this real requirement, instead of requireing a specific
Even better than compile-time type checking is the fact that my IDE, IDEA,
flags parameter type issues before I even compile. I wish there was a Ruby
IDE that could do that.
I would love a Ruby editor that could do “Find Usages” and all that
I really want to be convinced that this whole type checking thing is a
non-issue for Ruby, but I’m not quite there yet.
Ah, just wait for it.