Re: [RCR] Drop :: as a . synonym

Hi --

On Fri, 25 Apr 2008, Paul Brannan wrote:

> On Fri, Apr 25, 2008 at 04:49:00AM +0900, David A. Black wrote:
>> People can learn to read "File::new", and they can wonder why it
>> exists. If it's really because other languages treat class methods
>> specially, maybe they should find that out by studying those other
>> languages :-) I tend to feel that the "mere methods of mere objects"
>> principle is more central here.
>
> While I certainly don't feel that Ruby should be changed in order to
> suit users of other languages, I also feel it is foolish to ignore the
> fact that certain syntactic elements feel more natural to certain
> programmers because of their language backgrounds.  For example, the '.'
> syntax for method invocation may feel natural to a programmer with a
> background in a simula derivative, but is likely to feel foreign to
> anyone else.
>
> I have coworkers who use the :: syntax for singleton method invocation
> because it feels natural to them.  The reason it feels natural is
> because they come from a language that uses similar syntax for
> invocation of static member functions.  If :: had never been used in

http://www.infoq.com/articles/coming-from-ruby :-) I figure it's best
to break the cycle and just try to feel at home in the language one is
actually using at a given time. Otherwise, it's just endlessly
deferred happiness: Ruby feels unnatural because you were used to X,
then when you start using Y, it feels unnatural because you're used to
Ruby, and so forth. Love the one you're with, I say :-)

> Ruby for method invocation, it would probably not be a stumbling block,
> but removing it now is likely to cause confusion for many programmers.
> On the other hand, afaik I am yet to meet someone who has been genuinely
> confused by this syntax being available.

I've seen some confusion, because it leads people to think that class
methods involves something other than just being methods. (This is
based on the convention that :: is used for method-calling only when
the receiver is a class or module, which I've always found puzzling,
though merciful considering the alternatives.) It's possible to
explain it, of course, but I'm still unable to explain why it's there.

It could definitely be interesting to explore further the kinds of
things Eric M. was talking about (i.e., rededicated and focusing the
:: to do something more purposeful, so to speak).


David

-- 
Rails training from David A. Black and Ruby Power and Light:
   INTRO TO RAILS         June 9-12            Berlin
   ADVANCING WITH RAILS   June 16-19           Berlin
   INTRO TO RAILS         June 24-27           London (Skills Matter)
See http://www.rubypal.com for details and updates!