From: gabriele renzi <surrender_it@...>
Date: 2005-04-24T18:39:32+09:00
Subject: Re: [ANN] Article: Seeing Metaclasses Clearly

Mathieu Bouchard ha scritto:
> 
> On Thu, 21 Apr 2005, ts wrote:
> 
>> * a class is a module which can use inheritance
> 
> 
> Module#include qualifies as inheritance, no matter how one may try to 
> hide it under a carpet. A dog with a leg missing is still a dog. It 
> doesn't matter how much the Java religion asserts that multiple 
> inheritance is bad. We merely have to assert that multiple inheritance 
> is good, instead of playing word games like what I've consistently heard 
> in the Ruby community in my five years of hanging around. The attempt to 
> attract Java programmers to Ruby shouldn't have been done by 
> compromising the simplicity of Ruby; instead it should have been done by 
> cult deprogramming.
> 

I disagree, thinking that mixins and multiple inheritance are not the 
same thing, and should not be pointed as such.

> The defining qualities of a Ruby class may be that:
> 
> 1. a Ruby class is a direct-subclass-of a Ruby class using the "<" 
> notation (except the Object class).
> 
> 2. the Object class just happens to be the place where .new() is 
> defined; and this is no matter how many classes use undef_method(:new) 
> to forbid instantiation.

Is'nt it Class#new ?