From: Andreas Semt <as@...>
Date: 2005-01-20T02:29:54+09:00
Subject: Re: value by reference

Florian Gross wrote:

> trans. wrote:
> 
>>> sorry if this offends, but there is no less blunt way to say it.
>>> if anyone need it. they've gone wrong already.
>>> the solution: design
>>
>> That's silly. By that line of reasoning, nearly every other language
>> has got it wrong. Wrong must be pretty good since Ruby is no where near
>> as popular as those languages that can do this sort of thing.
> 
> 
> No, other languages use other models that need this. They don't work 
> like Ruby which is why they need it. Ruby needs other features that 
> those languages don't have in certain cases, but over all I have to say 
> that Ruby did a good job at being simple and consistent which is one of 
> the top reasons I like it so much. Everything just makes sense once you 
> understand the basics.
> 
> There's multiple approaches to this, but they should not be mixed.
> 
>> I think the problem with Ruby is that it _can be done_ if you use
>> certain _types_ of objects, but not others. That to me goes against the
>> feather of our friendly duck.
> 
> 
> No, it can not be done. You can never modify a variable that appeared in 
> your method invocation. You can change the Objects that you're methods 
> gets in case they are value Objects, but that's how OOP works. It makes 
> sense to be able to have entities that can change their state at run time.
> 
> 
> 

A nice discussion.
Florian should write a book! :-)

Greetings,
Andreas