From: Lionel Thiry <lthiryidontwantspam@...>
Date: 2005-04-18T11:19:34+09:00
Subject: Re: - E03c - The Ruby Object Model (Revised Documentation)

Ilias Lazaridis a �crit :
> Nikolai Weibull wrote:
> 
>> Ilias Lazaridis, April 18:
>>
>>> One should call Mr. Matz to review this.
>>
>>
>>> Most possibly he's the only one who knows.
>>
>>
>> It seems that you don't anyway,
> 
> 
> I've invested some time (whilst ignoring finally the current 
> documentation) to create this UML diagramm:
> 
> http://lazaridis.com/case/lang/ruby/TheRubyObjectModel.png
> 
> I'm asking now for confirmation/feedback.
> 
> This is nothing special within serious software-development.
> 
> -
> 
> But as it looks, this community is incapable to do so (giving productive 
> feedback).

I can.

-

But there are other ways of asking, you know... :(

-

I'll give it a try: the documentation "ri Class" gives is not wrong at all. 
Maybe not complete, but not wrong.

-

In "ri Class" text, if you replace references to "metaclasses" (which are said 
to be between parentheses) by "singleton method placeholders", perhaps it 
becomes clearer?

-

I remember that what was disturbing you was the stuff about metaclasses. I told 
you ruby invite you to think more in terms of singleton method than in terms of 
metaclasses. But it seems that you ignore what are singleton methods.

-

Have you ever evaluated some classless OO langages? I know some: IO ( 
http://www.iolanguage.com/ ), Self ( http://c2.com/cgi/wiki?SelfLanguage ) and 
REBOL (rebol is not basically OO, but its OO part is classless. 
http://www.rebol.com/ ). If you would, the concept of singleton method would be 
far easier to understand for you. (this is actually how I understood that concept)

-

http://lazaridis.com/case/lang/ruby/TheRubyObjectModel.png

Your UML diagram of ruby object model is hard to read, and probably wrong. The 
separation between classes in memory and in source code is totally confusing. In 
ruby, classes *are* objects. Learn more about classless languages, and it should 
be far easier to understand these concepts.

There is another evident mistake in your UML diagram. Object doesn't inherit 
from nil, nil is a literal and an instance of NilClass which inherit from Object.

-

I tried my best, I can't say anymore. Please, don't ask me for lengthy 
exhausting explanations. Try the languages I told you about, they are really 
worth it.

-

Have a nice day.

--
Lionel Thiry

PS: Please, anybody, do not blame me for anwsering this post. Do not blame me 
for imitating Lazaridis posting. Do not blame me for trying to be nice.