Linked by Thom Holwerda on Wed 11th Apr 2007 16:35 UTC, submitted by ShlomiFish
Permalink for comment 229735
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
News
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/18/13 21:06 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/18/13 7:37 UTC
Linked by fran on 05/18/13 1:38 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/17/13 23:35 UTC, submitted by kragil
Linked by MOS6510 on 05/17/13 22:22 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/17/13 22:15 UTC, submitted by Tom
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/16/13 21:41 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/16/13 17:04 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/16/13 13:17 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/16/13 12:06 UTC
More News »
Sponsored Links



Member since:
2007-04-11
To answer your question, yes and no.
I was originally used to using Kate and the command line to run my programs. I was so used to doing it that way I though irb wold be a pain.
Once my programs started getting big, however, I found that using irb helps me debug a chunk of code very quickly before integrating it into the main program.
For instance, the first program I wrote determines patient weight a number of weights than uses an algorithm to determine which one applies it then uses the weight and the patients age to determine the initial dose and interval.Then it takes those two numbers and uses some measured values to determine the next dose and ainterval.
I originally wrote thsi thing as a big mass and even with the line numbers shown in the error statement, I would lose sight of where my errors were coming from (especially with nested loops and the methods I'd created). Now I write a block of code, irb it, and when it is fixed, I integrate it into the whole. Works like a charm, especially when you want to try something that Scott Pine doesn't mention in his book but that you want to try anyway.