From: Ilias Lazaridis <ilias@...>
Date: 2005-04-21T23:44:32+09:00
Subject: Re: [EVALUATION] - E03e - The Ruby Object Model (Summary)

Austin Ziegler wrote:
> [Fair warning to those who plan on emailing me regarding this
> response. I'll be ignoring you. I am posting this to make sure that
> there is a public refutation to Ilias's incorrect statements below.
> -a]
> 
> On 4/21/05, Ilias Lazaridis <ilias@lazaridis.com> wrote:
> 
>>As stated before, the following documentation is false:
> 
> Stated incorrectly. The documentation is, in fact, correct. It
[...] - (babbling, justifying, talkaround)

the documentation is false.

see below.

>>a) The term "meta-classes" is false.
>>Correction: "specializing-singleton-objects"
> 
> It is not false. 
[...] - (babbling, justifying, talkaround)

"meta-classes" is completely false.

possibly you believe this one more:

http://blade.nagaokaut.ac.jp/cgi-bin/scat.rb/ruby/ruby-talk/40537

>>b) vertical arrows do not represent inheritance
>>e.g.:       Object----> (Object)
>>Correction: Object-----(Object)
> 
> Those are horizontal, not vertical. 

ok, my mistake.

I apologize.

> It is also one of those things
[...] - (babbling)

please focus.

ri Class states: "the arrows represent inheritance"

but: the _horizontal_ arrows do _not_ represent inheritance.

this is a simple, clear and undoubtable error.

>>c) the classes in "()" do not belong to the object model
>>Correction: remove (showcase sso in seperate topic)
> 
> This is incorrect. The metaobjects/metaclasses shown in the diagrams
> are essential, if not normally visible, parts of the Ruby Object
> Model. 

This is false, see below

> I do not believe that this is just an implementation detail,
> as it is exposed to the language for use.

what you believe is irrelevant.

reality counts.

and (especially for you) possibly this here:

http://www.ruby-talk.org/cgi-bin/scat.rb/ruby/ruby-talk/40548

>>My final questions are basicly:
>>* Ruby is OO. Why is the sso not directly accessible?
> 
> The metaobjects/metaclasses are not directly accessible because Matz
> has chosen not to make them directly accessible.
[...]

I see.

>>* Who has written the "ri Class" documentation?
> 
> Matz wrote the essentials. 

what do you mean by "essentials"?

Is Mr. Matsumoto the author of the "ri Class" content or not?

> I don't think that anyone knows the Ruby
> object model better than he.

"knowing" means not in the same time "ability to communicate".

>>* Can I expect an apology for this false documentation?
> 
> Given that the docuemntation isn't false, no. 
[...] - (babbling)

This question target's the responsible person.

..

-- 
http://lazaridis.com