From: itsme213 <itsme213@...>
Date: 2005-01-26T00:10:49+09:00
Subject: Re: "Duck Typing" or "No need for abstract classes"


"Pit Capitain" <pit@capitain.de> wrote
> Lothar Scholz schrieb:
> > CS> On Tue, 25 Jan 2005, Mathieu Bouchard wrote:
> > CS> Of course, creating something like this is much harder in a language
> > CS> like Ruby where objects are ever-changing and ever-malliable
> ..
> > 100% ACK.
> > As a toolwriter i often get requests: I want a good working
> > refactoring browsers, where are the code tooltips,
> > can't you integrate a ruby lint etc.
> >
> > These tools all need a type inference engine and this is a huge task.
> ..
>
> I'm sure you know where the original refactoring browser came from. Your
last
> statement is simply wrong.

Smalltalk's refactoring browser is image-based. The environment is working
on the end-result of all dynamic stuff (with the effective source
representation of that end-result). If you have dynamically added a method
to a class, that method shows up in the browser (I think!).

Wouldn't it be far more difficult to implement such a tool based solely on
the source-code that caused all that dynamic stuff to happen in the first
place.

Is image-based tooling a mismatch for Ruby? Hmmm.