From: David Alan Black <dblack@...>
Date: 2001-12-07T00:55:05+09:00
Subject: [ruby-talk:27704] Re: Emulating multimethods

Hello --

On Fri, 7 Dec 2001, Christopher S. Kush wrote:

> The reason I'm using Ruby is because I'm stuck.  I can't find a
> language that is:
>
>   1) Reasonably portable (popular Unices + Win32)
>   2) Pure OO
>   3) Threaded
>   4) Has multimethods

[...]

> I kind like Ruby.  It's so cool in so many ways that I just
> really really really want it to have (4) too.

I'm not knowledgable about multi-methods, but I can't help wanting to
say: give Ruby a little more time :-)  There really and truly may be
ways to do things in Ruby that accomplish what you want to do, even if
differently from the ways you're used to.

<editorial>

I think one of the side-effects of Ruby's dynamic and flexible nature
is (perhaps ironically, but understandably) that it can sometimes
convey the impression that Ruby itself, as a language, is sort of
unformed, or just a draft, or, so to speak, molten (and waiting to
solidify) rather than fluid (as a positive and permanent state).
However -- while there are certainly things in Ruby that are in flux
(or, in a few cases, arguably should be in flux :-) -- it's not a
sketchy or tentative language.  It's there.  And, while Ruby is
famously easy to pick up quickly, it's incredibly deep and repays lots
and lots of examination and usage.

I know this doesn't directly address any given "Does Ruby/Why doesn't
Ruby have X?"  question.  But, putting this together with your newness
to Ruby (welcome!), I'd encourage you to let the language talk to you
for a while, and see what it says.

</editorial>


David

-- 
David Alan Black
home: dblack@candle.superlink.net
work: blackdav@shu.edu
Web:  http://pirate.shu.edu/~blackdav