From: harshal <harshal.hayat@...>
Date: 2008-03-07T12:44:58+09:00
Subject: Re: Best practices for Ruby Meta-programming

That's absolutely true.

It reminds me Einstein's quote "Make it simple, no simpler" (or
similar).

I think 'Module'-related suggestion is a good beginning.
Some of the best practices would still be valid from traditional OOAD.

However, the place where Ruby differentiates itself from traditional
programming languages is - Meta-programming.
So I am expecting few 'new patterns' just because of meta-programming.
I could not get any chance to look at the book 'Design patterns in
Ruby'.

Thanks.

Harshal

On Mar 7, 12:19 am, Avdi Grimm <a...@avdi.org> wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 6, 2008 at 1:15 PM, James Britt <james.br...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >  Don't be evil.
>
> >  Don't be stupid.
>
> So THAT's what I've been doing wrong all this time.  Wish someone had
> clued me in sooner.
>
> My concrete contribution to this discussion:
>
> Modules are your friend.  When tempted to dynamically extend a class
> with new methods, consider adding them to a module instead
> (potentially a dynamically created module using Module.new).  Then use
> #include or #extend to add the module to your target.  This has a
> number of benefits, including:
>
>  * Clients can clearly see which which methods come from your
> extension vs. the methods that are part of the class itself, by using
> Ruby's reflection.
>  * Clients can override dynamically created methods and still reuse
> them with #super() - no need to resort to aliasing.
>  * A module can be re-used for either class-wide extension or
> extending a single object.
>
> --
> Avdi