"Code must be Chunkable"
in [Ruby]
|
From: Michel Demazure on 13 Feb 2010 03:42 Jörg W Mittag wrote: > Jörg W Mittag wrote: >> [...] >> I believe that, like OO or logic programming, DCI is only going to >> start to *really* shine (or, as the case may be, bomb spectacularly) >> when we have DCI languages. > > BTW: I *do* realize that this contradicts what James and Trygve have > been saying, that DCI is a paradigm that enables "good OO" in > *existing mainstream* languages. > > jwm I am not familiar enough with the DCI paradigm. But from times to times, I feel that Ruby does not go far enough with duck typing. Modules are not really objects ("everything is an object", they say), but a way to assign methods to objects "from outside". Yes, but you can quack like a duck ("include duck"), then miauw like a cat ("include cat"), but you cannot come back to quacking. "Once a duck, always a duck !", ODAD ! Is there a deep reason forbidding a more clever dispatching allowing to de-include modules and/or re-include modules ? md -- Posted via http://www.ruby-forum.com/.
From: Michel Demazure on 13 Feb 2010 04:26 Michel Demazure wrote: > > Is there a deep reason forbidding a more clever dispatching allowing to > de-include modules and/or re-include modules ? > This would avoid the use of ad-hoc classes or singletons to disguise modules. md -- Posted via http://www.ruby-forum.com/.
From: Ryan Davis on 13 Feb 2010 05:27 On Feb 13, 2010, at 00:42 , Michel Demazure wrote: > Modules are > not really objects ("everything is an object", they say), but a way to > assign methods to objects "from outside". how are modules not objects? do they not have state? do they not have behavior? are they not instances of a class? > Is there a deep reason forbidding a more clever dispatching allowing to > de-include modules and/or re-include modules ? the 'un' gem enables this.
From: Michel Demazure on 13 Feb 2010 05:37 Ryan Davis wrote: > On Feb 13, 2010, at 00:42 , Michel Demazure wrote: > >> Modules are >> not really objects ("everything is an object", they say), but a way to >> assign methods to objects "from outside". > > how are modules not objects? do they not have state? do they not have > behavior? are they not instances of a class? In that broad sense yes. But ... >> Is there a deep reason forbidding a more clever dispatching allowing to >> de-include modules and/or re-include modules ? > > the 'un' gem enables this. Thanks, I'll try it. md -- Posted via http://www.ruby-forum.com/.
From: Michel Demazure on 13 Feb 2010 05:45
Michel Demazure wrote: > Ryan Davis wrote: >> the 'un' gem enables this. > > Thanks, I'll try it. > > md Where do I find it ? Thks. -- Posted via http://www.ruby-forum.com/. |