Q's about rubydbc

I’d be interested to know if anybody is using this too.

Might design-by-contract be a worthy addition to (perhaps my
implementation!) standard language?

I think so, despite the fact that I haven’t used it much myself :slight_smile:

My point is that DBC is actually more useful outside of the static
type checking environment of an Eiffel, C++, or Java. I truly do not
care about the type of an object I’m calling, but I care deeply about
it’s semantics, and that’s what Design by Contract is all about.

So yes, my two cents says it is a worthy element that can be used
effectively in the construction of larger systems. To be effective,
it should be part of the base-level language, and all of the standard
library classes should be annotated with contracts.

Ruby may never need it, but I don’t think we’ll know either way
unless the facility exists in such an ingrained manner that it
becomes second-nature to use it.



Andrew Hunt, The Pragmatic Programmers, LLC.
Innovative Object-Oriented Software Development and Mentoring for Agile Methods
web: http://www.pragmaticprogrammer.com email: andy@pragmaticprogrammer.com

Author of “The Pragmatic Programmer” * “Programming Ruby” * The Agile Manifesto
Columnist for IEEE Software Magazine
Pragmatic T-shirts available at: www.pragmaticprogrammer.com/merchandise.html