[rspec-users] exemplary way to show a list is sorted?

Zach Dennis zach.dennis at gmail.com
Tue Feb 10 22:52:48 EST 2009

On Tue, Feb 10, 2009 at 10:09 PM, James Byrne <lists at ruby-forum.com> wrote:
> Zach Dennis wrote:
>> On Tue, Feb 10, 2009 at 6:22 PM, James Byrne <lists at ruby-forum.com>
>> wrote:
>>> David Chelimsky wrote:
>>>> please use "should be >=" as "should >=" will eventually be deprecated
>>>> and removed.
>>> Removed?  You are not seriously contemplating forcing people to go back
>>> and rewrite formally working specifications simply to tidy up the syntax
>>> are you?
>> Forcing people, eh? You don't have to upgrade when that release is
>> made. No one is holding a gun to your head. You can always choose to
>> progress with the library, as it continues to evolve into new and
>> better ways of doing things.
> There are enterprises in which the stability of development tools and
> the confidence that one will not be forced to redo work already
> completed is considered somewhat important, whatever your own situation
> might be.  Likewise, assuming the costs of maintaining a customized
> variant of a general tool or foregoing future improvements in same to
> maintain the value of existing work is not a choice savoured by many
> firms that I can bring to mind, even if yours might be exceptional in
> this regard.  At issue is something commonly referred to as
> cost/benefit, which ultimately turns into profit and loss.
> I simply fail to see why evolving a tool in "better ways" necessarily
> requires that the formerly "better" but now depreciated method be
> removed.

Just like there is cost associated with you taking time to update your
software to work with changes in the libraries and tools you use,
there is cost that the developers and maintainers of those very
libraries and tools will incur in order to maintain backwards
compatibility for features that are no longer deemed necessary.

This will lead to large negative effects over time, like a snowball
rolling down a hill. When the snow is good for packing though--none of
that fluffy stuff that doesn't stick.

> Such action causes avoidable and pointless work.

And to disprove this argument I will defer to the avoidable and
pointless work you will be causing those who maintain the software,

> I consider my
> observation to be both reasonable and pertinent.
> --
> Posted via http://www.ruby-forum.com/.
> _______________________________________________
> rspec-users mailing list
> rspec-users at rubyforge.org
> http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users

Zach Dennis

More information about the rspec-users mailing list