Re: Ruby Vs. ... might find comparison of interest.

On Fri, Oct 29, 2004 at 04:23:01AM +0900, trans.  (T. Onoma) wrote:
> On Thursday 28 October 2004 02:38 pm, James Britt wrote:
> | trans. (T. Onoma) wrote:
> | > http://www.garret.ru/~knizhnik/dybase/doc/dybase.html#specific
> |
> | He doesn't know enough Ruby to be making such comparisons.
> |
> | "For example reflection support in Ruby is very restricted - it is not
> | possible to access instance variables outside the object. "
> |
> | False.
> |
> | Articles such as these might be better referred to as "Somebody's
> | 10-minute understanding of Ruby vs ..."
> 
> True. But that's not the point. That kind of info is "out there". And this 
> site was referenced from a Ruby lib called, 'purple', which essentially said 
> that DyBase was a better way to go --that's I how I found it.
> 
> So its easy to say he doesn't know diddly. But we as a community still need to 
> address such things --and from both sides. Where they are accurate we should 
> improve on our end, and where they are inaccurate we need to get them to 
> improve on their end. On that not I will email him. Is ther anything else I 
> should add besides the instance var thing?
[...]

Maybe mention that anything that can be done inside an object can be
done outside an object.

e.g.

  foo.instance_eval { @a }


Point out that `instance_eval' is not the "evil string-eval".