From: "JeremyWoertink@..." <JeremyWoertink@...>
Date: 2007-09-26T02:14:56+09:00
Subject: Re: Why dynamic languages for ActiveRecord..?

haha, nice! Especially the name.

On Sep 25, 10:02 am, "Jason Roelofs" <jameskil...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 9/25/07, Robert Dober <robert.do...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On 9/25/07, Phlip <phlip2...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > David A. Black wrote:
>
> > > > I'd say that the type of a Ruby object can change, but its class
> > > > cannot. That's based on an understanding of the object's type as a
> > > > kind of runtime snapshot of what the object can do and what messages
> > > > it understands.
>
> > > The inspiration there is Smalltalk, which is similarly strongly typed.
> > I would not agree with this statement. Smalltalk strongly typed???
> > Furthermore there is Object>>becomes: (or was it a different class?)
> > which lets an object change its class too, so that makes a big
> > difference to Ruby.
> > BTW I had love to have Object#becomes in Ruby :)))
>
> > Cheers
> > Robert
> > --
> > I'm an atheist and that's it. I believe there's nothing we can know
> > except that we should be kind to each other and do what we can for
> > other people.
> > -- Katharine Hepburn
>
> require 'evil'
>
> http://eigenclass.org/hiki.rb?evil.rb+dl+and+unfreeze