I stumbled across yet another most unnecessary "DevOps" tool for ensuring config files adhere to a structure, schema, & satisfy naming conventions. It was written in a dynamically typed language using a very stringly (weakly) typed API that they exposed to users for extension. /1
I ask because I object to calling Ruby stringly typed even though I agree with the rest of your assessment. I understand your desire not to attack a language though :)
-
-
I didn't call the language stringly typed. I did call the *API* stringly typed. I have never called a language stringly/weakly typed because that would be absurd. I have called many implementations in the Ruby language stringly or weakly typed. I suggest you read. :)
-
Sorry I really didn't want to get into a fight, just as you didn't want to! I just wanted to understand what you were saying :) I put my cards on the table specifically to avoid an argument. Sorry :(
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
People see what they want to see so they can launch into attack mode but I have a hard time seeing where you saw me do this here in a genuine attempt to understand the original tweet.https://twitter.com/SusanPotter/status/947842295977693185 …
-
I was definitely not trying to launch into attack mode and apologize if it came across that way. I talked about rust (and derive(Encode)) up front to show that we had some shared ideas about how to do this well.
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.