Comments on: Bill Gates: less code is only metric

by: Thought Leadership

Sat, 18 Mar 2006 14:44:14 +0000

More Thoughts on Ruby and Why it isn't enterprise

I previously blogged on Large Enterprises and why they don't care about Ruby and was rightfully accused of bashing folks in the Ruby community but not providing the answer to my original statement. Figured I would set things right...

by: appletree » Blog Archive » Bill Gates Champions Simplicity

Fri, 17 Mar 2006 19:15:37 +0000

[…] I think most people intuitively embrace this ideal, but many still wonder whether it is reflected in Microsoft’s products. Lesscode.org has more, and a link to the interview. […]

by: Less code is the only metric » The R Zone

Tue, 14 Mar 2006 21:36:59 +0000

[…] Over at lesscode.org (Bill Gates: less code is only metric [@lesscode.org]), finally, a comment from Bill Gates I wholeheartedly agree. There’s only really one metric to me for future software development, which is — do you write less code to get the same thing done? […]

by: Thought Leadership

Mon, 13 Mar 2006 12:07:34 +0000

Why Ruby Doesn't Matter...

You may have noticed that pretty much everyone in the Ruby camp are insultants with many of them being book authors attempting to capitalize on hype. I of course, will remain open minded that Ruby may be better than say Java at some tasks but for the...

by: Gosling Didn’t Get The Memo [@lesscode.org]

Mon, 13 Mar 2006 03:09:42 +0000

[…] I’ve been blissfully neglecting this site for months with the assumption that a large part of our goal was completed. After watching good people like Martin LaMonica and Jon Udell balance out the mainstream tech press with coverage of lessish tools and languages, and having seen forward looking companies like RedMonk inject themselves into the traditional analyst racket with smart, honest, and unignorable critique, and having seen herds of Java luminaries migrate to simpler, more agile tools and languages, and after hearing Bill Gates say that less code was the only metric, and having watched David, Bill, Ian, Adrian, Phillip, Aristotle, Harry, Mark, Mark, Chad, Curt, James and many other extremely talented programmers dismantle all the common hollow arguments for superfluous complexity and replace them with simple methodologies and working code, after all that I just figured there wasn’t much to do around here. […]

by: Robert Church

Mon, 26 Sep 2005 06:39:12 +0000

On the subject of implementing something like LINQ in Ruby, have a look at Criteria.

It's a library intended to let you write composable SQL queries in-line in Ruby, using some clever abuse of operater overloading. I don't think it's really complete, and I don't think it's maintained, but the basics are there.

In the same vein, there's Avi Bryant's Roe system for Squeak, which appears to be breathtakingly simple and powerful.

by: Ryan Tomayko

Sun, 25 Sep 2005 02:04:41 +0000

I'll see your svn repo..

svn://lesscode.org/rubyq/trunk

and raise you a trac instance:

http://lesscode.org/projects/rubyq

subversion auth is on the way...

by: Bill de hOra

Sat, 24 Sep 2005 15:27:48 +0000

“LINQ might be done in a Ruby DSL. “

Ohh! As if I haven’t enough distractions already. Can you set up a svn repo? If not I’ll create one on textdrive.

by: Ryan Tomayko

Sat, 24 Sep 2005 09:22:03 +0000

Bill: I’m anxiously awaiting that post. :)

On that topic, I’ve been waiting for someone to make the point that LINQ shouldn’t require changes to the core language. Given a language that allows highly expressive DSLs to be created, LINQ should be able to come as library.

I haven’t looked into LINQ very deeply so I might be talking out of the side of my mouth here but I’d love to see someone brainstorm on how something like LINQ might be done in a Ruby DSL. Not the actual implementation but what the DSL would look like.

by: Bill de hOra

Fri, 23 Sep 2005 21:58:51 +0000

Mitch: "If you really want to talk about “less code”, how about thoughts and discussions on using code generators or visual language tools like Domain Specific Languages."

I'm sitting on a DSL post; I can't quite seem to get it to hang together, but I can boil it done to this essence:

start with a full scripting language and constrain as needed, rather than designing your own language and extending as needed. Outright language design is too hard in real world delivery timescales.
the DSL revolution, come the glorious day, will be linguistic, not visual. This is where the CASE/BPEL tools go awry.

But hey Mitch; wanna post something here? Ask Ryan for an account.