>>> Sometimes I wasted hours and hours just becaue there is one charactor difference. I hate it. "because" misspelt.
I think that was intentional.
“Did you mean?” Experience in Ruby
11–20 of 187 posts
Re: “Did you mean?” Experience in Ruby
#12I would love it if instead of quitting my program with an error, it just went ahead and called the method it thinks I'm referring to. This would remove a lot of unneeded friction from web development.
Baaad idea, hides the errors and you have no idea if it will call the correct thing in the future too.
Re: “Did you mean?” Experience in Ruby
#13Obviously this is a useful tool, and all the power to the author for finding what looks to be an excellent solution, but this line bothers me: >>> Sometimes I wasted hours and hours just because there is one character difference. I hate it. This shouldn't happen. Ever. This should not be a problem anymore. These are the sort of errors that we can catch immediately and should be caught immediately. From looking at the…
On the other hand, this gives a consistent experience and does not force people to mess around with plugins for their editor (if needed)
Re: “Did you mean?” Experience in Ruby
#14'Sometimes I wasted hours and hours just becaue there is one charactor difference. I hate it.' Not sure if the typos (Yeah, there are two) are intentional but I loved it :-)
Yes. They are intentional.
Re: “Did you mean?” Experience in Ruby
#15I would love it if instead of quitting my program with an error, it just went ahead and called the method it thinks I'm referring to. This would remove a lot of unneeded friction from web development.
Baaad idea, hides the errors and you have no idea if it will call the correct thing in the future too.
Agreed with this.
Re: “Did you mean?” Experience in Ruby
#16>>> Sometimes I wasted hours and hours just becaue there is one charactor difference. I hate it. "because" misspelt.
'Charactor' is also miss-spelt... It's intentional.
Re: “Did you mean?” Experience in Ruby
#17I would love it if instead of quitting my program with an error, it just went ahead and called the method it thinks I'm referring to. This would remove a lot of unneeded friction from web development.
[deleted]
Re: “Did you mean?” Experience in Ruby
#18The value of static typing is more and more apparent. Recently I've played with ocaml and F# and it felt great compared to Java or C++.
Re: “Did you mean?” Experience in Ruby
#19The value of static typing is more and more apparent. Recently I've played with ocaml and F# and it felt great compared to Java or C++.
Aren't Java and C++ statically-typed as well?
Re: “Did you mean?” Experience in Ruby
#20The value of static typing is more and more apparent. Recently I've played with ocaml and F# and it felt great compared to Java or C++.
C++ and Java are statically typed. If you're referring to dynamic polymorphism, then yes, it can be a pain in the ass.