23 Jul, 2009, quixadhal wrote in the 21st comment:
Votes: 0
The problem with in-code documentation is that it's meant for programmers. Those are, typically, NOT the people who are insisting on seeing documentation. While that's perfectly acceptable to me, I can tell you that several of my pointy-haired bosses would have told you to go back to your desk and print out the documentation, not some "chunks of code".

The professional world cares about (1) getting things done under budget, (2) getting things done on time, and (3..99) making sure the company's ass is covered against any possible legal issues. The best way most of management knows to do that is to bury everything in paperwork and documentation so they can wash their hands and say "We did full disclosure, it's your problem now."

I'm not saying it always gets done, or even that it *should* be done, just that if it isn't done and the boss gets called on it, the programmer is going to take the heat for it.
24 Jul, 2009, Sandi wrote in the 22nd comment:
Votes: 0
Chris Bailey said:
That is the whole point of it but it doesn't mean you can't write your code intelligently. That would put Professional agile developers on the same level as myself really, which would be pretty sad for the industry =(


But Chris, there's a whole lot of evidence that "the industry" is pretty sad.
24 Jul, 2009, Chris Bailey wrote in the 23rd comment:
Votes: 0
Keep in mind here folks, I was speaking explicitly about Ruby and Rails development firms. The few I have associated with, and what I have gathered from conferences suggest that they follow exactly what I have mentioned. =)
24 Jul, 2009, Runter wrote in the 24th comment:
Votes: 0
Chris Bailey said:
Keep in mind here folks, I was speaking explicitly about Ruby and Rails development firms. The few I have associated with, and what I have gathered from conferences suggest that they follow exactly what I have mentioned. =)


A lot of pragmatic developers use RoR. A lot pragmatic developers are involved in web endeavors in general. I think that's somewhat (but not always) reflective upon their choice of technology.
24 Jul, 2009, David Haley wrote in the 25th comment:
Votes: 0
I think that it's a little bit of a stretch to say that there's a strong association between "pragmatic developers" and "web developers". I guess it depends on what you mean by "pragmatic".

RoR's main strength is the toolkit and not so much the language. It's a poster child for the lack of attention that people pay to building a solid toolkit, and the extremely nice benefits you get when you actually do have a very nice toolkit. A crappy language with an awesome toolkit is nicer than an awesome language with a crappy toolkit.
24 Jul, 2009, Chris Bailey wrote in the 26th comment:
Votes: 0
David - WRONG! It's Ruby that ALLOWED the wonderful toolkit of Rails. =)
24 Jul, 2009, David Haley wrote in the 27th comment:
Votes: 0
I'm guessing you meant that facetiously, but just in case you didn't… :wink: What feature of Ruby makes it particularly (and apparently exclusively) suited to producing Rails?
24 Jul, 2009, Chris Bailey wrote in the 28th comment:
Votes: 0
Readability, ease of use, general appeal to the web programmer? =)
24 Jul, 2009, Runter wrote in the 29th comment:
Votes: 0
David Haley said:
I think that it's a little bit of a stretch to say that there's a strong association between "pragmatic developers" and "web developers". I guess it depends on what you mean by "pragmatic".


Quote
of or pertaining to a practical point of view or practical considerations.


It always bothers me when you say it depends on what someone means by a word when there is only one definition that can fit. It's rather condescending.

And knowing the definition– I indeed disagree. I would call web developers more pragmatic in the way they approach getting things done in general, and you're free to disagree with that without questioning my understanding of the English language.
24 Jul, 2009, Chris Bailey wrote in the 30th comment:
Votes: 0
Oh, it's ability to quickly and effectively produce code that produces code. Rails is BUILT on generators. =)
24 Jul, 2009, David Haley wrote in the 31st comment:
Votes: 0
Runter: I wasn't questioning your understanding of the English language. Sheesh. Next time I'll just assume you were simply making an incorrect, overgeneralizing statement instead of trying to understand what you meant. :rolleyes: (You see, some of us actually believe we might misunderstand the other, instead of assuming we're always correct. Funny, huh?) Basically, I think you're making a mistake in talking about "pragmatic" programmers too generally.

Chris: and these features exist in no other language…? :wink:
24 Jul, 2009, Chris Bailey wrote in the 32nd comment:
Votes: 0
David - Hehe, they can't do it as quickly and efficiently as Ruby. Not for the average guy. :P
24 Jul, 2009, David Haley wrote in the 33rd comment:
Votes: 0
No, seriously though. Are you just saying that, or do you have reason to believe that similar languages like Python or Lua couldn't make a similar framework?
24 Jul, 2009, Runter wrote in the 34th comment:
Votes: 0
David Haley said:
Next time I'll just assume you were simply making an incorrect, overgeneralizing statement


That's generally the best time to dispute someones claim. But I guess that depends on what you mean by "incorrect, overgeneralizing." You sure you don't mean "correct, amazing"?
24 Jul, 2009, David Haley wrote in the 35th comment:
Votes: 0
I'm just a little surprised that you object so strongly to me assuming I might have misunderstood you, and trying to get clarification – it's like you want me to assume you're wrong off the bat, and start a big crap storm about it. :thinking:
24 Jul, 2009, Cratylus wrote in the 36th comment:
Votes: 0
Chris Bailey said:
David - Hehe, they can't do it as quickly and efficiently as Ruby. Not for the average guy. :P


I think I have a picture of Ruby around here somewhere, lemme see if I can dig it up
24 Jul, 2009, Chris Bailey wrote in the 37th comment:
Votes: 0
David - Ruby is more elegant and readable than Lua or Python for the average guy. I'm not talking about you super programmers that just immediately understand a language. Rails, using Ruby, allowed more "Average Joes" to get involved with web development than any "toolkit" built in Python or Lua. Python does have it's own "toolkit", is it as successful as Rails? =)
24 Jul, 2009, David Haley wrote in the 38th comment:
Votes: 0
I'm mainly saying that I don't think Python or Lua have toolkits as good as Rails – I think you're on kind of shaky ground when making very broad statements like that about which languages are actually easier to read etc. You'd have to first establish that equally good toolkits exist in both languages for the comparison to be really meaningful.

It's true that RoR is a big success and I'm not disputing that. I am however unsure if it's due to the language inherently or to the very nice toolkit.
24 Jul, 2009, Davion wrote in the 39th comment:
Votes: 0
DavidHaley said:
I'm mainly saying that I don't think Python or Lua have toolkits as good as Rails


http://www.djangoproject.com/

Look. Even says pragmatic on the front page!
20.0/39