From: Robert Klemme <bob.news@...>
Date: 2005-04-04T23:49:43+09:00
Subject: Smalltakish access to source code (was: Re: [EVALUATION] - E03 - jamLang Evaluation Case Applied to Ruby)


"Ilias Lazaridis" <ilias@lazaridis.com> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:d2rjbt$qs3$1@usenet.otenet.gr...
> [...]
> >>>>The Ruby Object Model does not contain reflective MetaClasses, which
> >>>>would enable to apply metadata even to methods.
> [...]
>
> >>ok, there are metaclasses, which are not fully(!) reflective (as
already
> >>showcased due to the missing possiility to recreate the
class-definition).
> >
> >>[E.g. Smalltalks object model is fully reflective (classes are
instances
> >>of metaclasses).]
> >
> > If that's the criterion I'd say that is indeed fully reflective:
> [...] - (some examples)
>
> if ruby _is_ fully reflective, than please provide the code for "class
> definition recreation"
>
> http://lazaridis.com/case/lang/ruby.html#sayYourClassDefinition
>
> > => [Class, Module, Object, Kernel]
> >
> > In spite of that you cannot recreate a class definition because you
cannot
> > extract method bodies from the meta data.  All you get is method names
via
> > #instance_methods and their arity.  Does Smalltalk provide more?
>
> yes.
>
> I've quickly found this here, which expresses the relevant points:
>
> http://www.zenspider.com/Languages/Smalltalk/VsJava.html

The major difference I can see at the moment is that you seem to get
access to the method body in Smalltalk.  That's nice.  Though I have to
admit that I never missed this feature...

> [but please let's close this subthread, as I move out of topic and out
> of time.]

:-)  I think I get the difference now.  Thanks.

Kind regards

    robert