[ruby-talk:11331] Re: musings about Hash#each_with_index

Dave Thomas <[e-mail]> wrote:
>
>[e-mail] (Jean Michel) writes:
[...]
>I agree it's an important paradigm: interfaces are the best thing
>about Java. I'm just not convinced it's a necessary paradigm. A couple
>of years ago, I'd have been on your side. I was a strong typing bigot,
>and wanted everything tied down. Now I'm learning that it's OK to rely
>on the fact that an interface is defined by the messages that an object
>happens to accept at runtime, and that (for example) using '<<' as a
>"write to the end of" operator works just fine without having to
>define a "write to the end of" interface.

Indeed.  An interesting essay on the importance of late
binding may go a long way to explaining why it is so nice
to have dynamic typing at run-time rather than trying to
lay out your type system in advance:

http://guzdial.cc.gatech.edu/squeakbook/AlansForeword.html

>I see matju's work differently. I don't see it constraining existing
>behavior. I see it as
>
>1. A quick way to generate new classes which ape the behavior of
>    built-in classes, and more importantly
>
>2. A step towards Ruby-in-Ruby/microRuby or whatever it's called this
>    week.

Exactly, and to these I would like to add:

3. A way to automate creating classes that expose
   conventional interfaces.  That which is not
   automated will not reliable happen etc...

Cheers,
Ben
_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com