#ruby-offtopic - 02 November 2018
« Back 1 day Forward 1 day »
[14:52:36] phaul: I was just doing a bunch of challanges @ hackajob.co. Sigh, this is horrendous, lots of second guessing on how they run my code, and what errors might be. Difficulty realy is to hammer the solution into a form that does not fail on their system
[14:56:17] phaul: they give you a class Solution; def run; end; end frame to work in. Don't expect them to call your initialize though, if you write one :)
[14:56:56] phaul: My bet is that they inherit from solution, and initialize doesn't call super. Though I can't see what's actually running..
[17:10:55] havenwood: phaul: In nightly: #!> `<main>': undefined method `a' for main:Object (NoMethodError)
[17:12:08] eam: I'd rather use minitest or something that looks like all the other testing frameworks in all the other languages I use
[17:32:38] phaul: I was afk. yeah, the syntax is not for everyone. it's either love it or hate it it seems
[17:33:24] havenwood: phaul: it has it's own object model and is so far from the simplest thing that can possibly work - with benefits that seem dubious at best
[17:34:19] havenwood: I do wish Minitest had some ExUnit niceties to allow fewer custom asserts and still have nice error messages
[17:35:50] phaul: but if the project is such that many ppl have to cooperate I'm up for minitest if that's the agreement
[17:37:53] phaul: I had similar feelings against SQL like DSLs to generate actual SQL. like sequel although I actually like sequel in particular.
[17:51:51] phaul: one thing haskell has over ruby is/was quickcheck. I always thought that was cool. basically you defined an Arbitrary interface to your objects, and the suite used that to generate arbitrary examples. And a Reduce interface, that the suite could use to simplify a failure case to bare minimum that still fails