[manuscreationis]

When I was first trying to learn about rails, I asked a friend who had been developing in it for a while about things like DI, and separation of concerns. He told me that those were things you used in Java and .Net because the languages just weren't as... I'm struggling to remember the exact term he used, but essentially "open" or "un-restricted".

He echoed the phrase I've seen elsewhere "Ruby just doesn't need that".

I disagreed with him then, and still do. People like to claim that OOP breeds cargo cult programming and overly cumbersome abstractions upon abstractions (and it can), but some times you really do need that kind of approach to make a large scale project testable and maintainable.

I'm glad to see there are Ruby devs who can see the value in using these kind of approaches. I honestly believe it's the kind of thing you think is a major waste of time, until you are shown the benefit first hand, and you experience the change. Then you start to understand that by spending a significant deal of time up front building your infrastructure, you can save a lot of time down the road.

I know that's how it was for me years back.

[jes5199]

He probably used the word "expressive", which is how we used to excuse ruby's problems.

It's pretty clear, by now, that we (the ruby community) were wrong about how to maintain projects over time without getting mired in complexity.