Re: What we have here is a retard pretending to be a compute

Ruby
1

[email protected] wrote:

http://www.iam.unibe.ch/~scg/Archive/Papers/Scha04bOOEncapsulation.pdf
. this retard thinks Smalltalk and Ruby don’t have private public and
what not. what a joke. This is almost as bad as James McGovern without
the pictures

Thanks for the article. Very nice at first glance, nothing retardish
spotted so far.

Gennady.

2

On Dec 28, 6:30 pm, “Gennady B.” [email protected]

3

On Dec 28, 6:39 pm, [email protected] wrote:

Gennady.
Sorry blank post. but saying ruby has no encapsulation of methods is
funny, it is pretty stupid if you ask me.

4

On 29.12.2006 01:42, [email protected] wrote:

Sorry blank post. but saying ruby has no encapsulation of methods is
funny, it is pretty stupid if you ask me.

Where exactly do you read that in the article?

Regards

robert
5

Robert K. wrote:

On 29.12.2006 01:42, [email protected] wrote:

Sorry blank post. but saying ruby has no encapsulation of methods is
funny, it is pretty stupid if you ask me.

Where exactly do you read that in the article?

I think he was referring to this (starts at the bottom of page 1 of the
original article):

“Popular dynamically typed languages such as Smalltalk, Self, Python,
and Ruby still provide no encapsulation at all, or support it in a very
limited way.”

and then later on page 3:

“None of these languages provide any support for declaring internal
methods that cannot be invoked from outside of the class in which they
are defined.”

Jeff