Little Things

Ruby
121

Robert D. wrote:

I guess meta-programming shall be harder until to the point where you
insert

require ‘metakit’

into your programming, what about that idea?

Could be a great one! My only concern is that having both the normal
#send, etc. and the meta-forms (whatever the syntax) could lead to some
sort of conflict that will defeat the purpose of even havnig a
“metakit”. I may be totally wrong about that though --it’s just a “gut”
worry.

T.

122

Hi –

On Fri, 5 Jan 2007, [email protected] wrote:

backdoor instead of ‘method’, or ‘method!’ crazy proliferation: it simply
does not scale, is not robust, and has code smell in the sense that the
containment is not OO (one object repsonsible) but is scattered all over the
place via naming conventions.

Ah ha, my OO-er than thou claim comes back to haunt me! :slight_smile: I
actually don’t usually talk in terms of more/less OO, and I know I’m
guilty of introducing that into this discussion… but I will say that
I don’t think “one object responsible” is a principle of OO. It may
be that the ability to override send is a problem, but
obj.send(“message”) is, I think, a pretty object-oriented way to go
about things.

David