From: Robert Dober <robert.dober@...>
Date: 2007-02-18T07:56:32+09:00
Subject: Re: Oppinions on RCR for dup on immutable classes

On 2/17/07, Dean Wampler <deanwampler@gmail.com> wrote:
> > ...
> >
> > OO Languages are Class oriented languages
> > Dynamic Languages are Object oriented languages.
> > Replace Class with Type and you see what I mean.
> >
> > This is all very much IMHO of course but I feel that the Ruby
> > community has made me evolve a lot away from "Class oriented".
>
> Interesting points, especially about the implications of
> "class-centric" vs. "object-centric" programming.
>
> It's true that I rarely ever run into LSP issues, even in Java code. I
> think it reflects, in part, the general movement OOD towards
> de-emphasizing inheritance in favor of composition through
> abstractions, etc. I would rather have the richness of Object and
> Kernel, even with some LSP issues.
Interesting - and comforting - to know.
I do not have the luxury to follow more than Ruby nowadays (and I try
to find time for Smalltalk very hard, in vein so far).
>
> As someone else commented, perhaps the real issue is that
> 5.respond_to?(:dup) returns true yet 5.dup raises, so you have no way
> of knowing in advance that you shouldn't call dup.
That just came up recently and I agree that this is kind of inelegant
(euphemistically)
Maybe that would be a reasonable CR?

>
> > ...
>
>
Cheers
Robert

-- 
We have not succeeded in answering all of our questions.
In fact, in some ways, we are more confused than ever.
But we feel we are confused on a higher level and about more important things.
-Anonymous