From: Ruby Newbie Date: 2006-06-14T23:57:53+09:00 Subject: Re: Cut-based AOP ------=_Part_91377_17909914.1150297069442 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Austin, Looking around, you have hundreds of posts, and you're involved as a mentor in Google Summer of Code " Automated Wrapper Generation for Information Extraction" arena. I take it you have the experience to back up what you're saying. Can you provide references to better and more-established ways of offering such extensibility? I looked briefly at traits which you'd alluded to earlier, but it requires changes to the core code for trait/hook insertion. I'm interested to read about other mechanisms which are more maintainable and extensible than AOP in Ruby if you could please share them. I ask not to inflame, but to draw out an open discourse around this matter. On 6/14/06, Austin Ziegler wrote: > > On 6/14/06, transfire@gmail.com wrote: > > One can argue the merits (or lack there-of) of AOP all you want. But I > > think you and Audtin are being overbarring to tell others they don't > > need AOP. That's not your choice. And I don't see Ruby as something so > > draconian. There is nothing adverse to the ability to, > > Excuse me. I didn't say that others don't need AOP. I said that *I* > haven't needed AOP in four years of Ruby experience and it seems to > offer no value over what Ruby already offers. > > Yes, I'm one of the folks who is "strongly opposed" to the cut-based > AOP RCR that you've written. I think it's unnecessarily complex and > there are better and more-established ways of offering such > extensibility. > > -austin > -- > Austin Ziegler * halostatue@gmail.com * http://www.halostatue.ca/ > * austin@halostatue.ca * http://www.halostatue.ca/feed/ > * austin@zieglers.ca > > ------=_Part_91377_17909914.1150297069442--