From: Jim Weirich <jim@...>
Date: 2006-04-01T12:26:52+09:00
Subject: Re: (Static) Constructors/Destructors in Ruby

PrimaryKey wrote:
> Please consider the following (pseudo) C# example:

I think Logan Capaldo's answer is hits pretty close to your intention 
here.  However, I have to comment because I've been retrofitting unit 
tests in to a legacy (Java) code base this past week and I've come to 
*hate* static initializers.

The code base does something similar to your example and the code is 
impossible to unit test without some restructuring.  Since the database 
connection is made in static initializers, I can't even load the class 
without having the infrastructure for a database connection available. 
Yuck!

I've come to consider complex static initializers (e.g. making DB 
connections in the initilizer) a thing of "evil".

Ok, rant over. ;)

> [...]
> 2. It can be helpful for meta-programming purposes. My impression is 
> most languages try to implement the traditional OO tools on class 
> (static) level

I'm not getting statement #2 above.

Thanks.

--
-- Jim Weirich

-- 
Posted via http://www.ruby-forum.com/.