'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 :-)
“Did you mean?” Experience in Ruby
21–30 of 187 posts
Re: “Did you mean?” Experience in Ruby
#22I 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.
Re: “Did you mean?” Experience in Ruby
#23I 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.
Re: “Did you mean?” Experience in Ruby
#24This sort of stuff should, at least in the 'easy' case be done at the editor level. Doesn't ruby have linter tooling for this? Still, props for the work.
Re: “Did you mean?” Experience in Ruby
#25It has tons of other features that save you time and hassle.
Re: “Did you mean?” Experience in Ruby
#26'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 :-)
Turned down the too-obvious ironic opportunity and went for somewhere else in the sentence.
Re: “Did you mean?” Experience in Ruby
#27The 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++.
(I say this as a developer of primarily statically typed languages.)
Re: “Did you mean?” Experience in Ruby
#28This solution, while creative and laudable, solves a problem that shouldn't exist. It should either be solved by IDE/tooling in a dynamically typed language or by the compiler in a statically typed language. Stop guessing and let your tools do the hard work of remembering method names for you.
Re: “Did you mean?” Experience in Ruby
#29I've been pairing with ruby / rails developers since 2010 and coming from statically typed languages, it's unbelievable how much time gets spent playing "guess the method name". Even in rich IDEs like RubyMine, the utter lack of context in any given file in rails leaves programmers typing their best guess of a method name, running the tests, rinse, repeat. This solution, while creative and laudable, solves a problem…
Re: “Did you mean?” Experience in Ruby
#30I 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.
There is actually a python module that does something like that. It goes to the extreme to keep the program running no matter the error you make, arithmetic error are replaced with random results, missing functions skipped, exceptions silently swallowed etc etc. It is obviously a joke but they could benefit greatly from this feature ;)