From: "David A. Black" <dblack@...>
Date: 2008-07-21T21:37:48+09:00
Subject: Re: protected members or explicit abstract classes?

Hi --

On Mon, 21 Jul 2008, Robert Dober wrote:

> Short answer:
>   Because Ruby is not Java
>
> Long answer:
>  Ruby just has a different way approaching object oriented
> programming. I believe that it is a more agile
>  approach, and that abstract classes do not fit into Ruby's paradigm at all.
>
> Very long answer:
>   As a matter of fact I believe that Ruby should not even have
> classes, class and type rhyme too strongly.
>   I have developed different ways of doing object oriented
> development in Ruby (traits, prototypes, pushable behavior) all of
> them very slow, unfortunately. I really do not remember when I wanted
> an abstract class or a
>  protected member last when developing in Ruby. I am still guilty of
> some code like "if String === s" but I
>  hopefully one day will replace this with  "if s.behaves_like? StringBehavior".

You could do that with const_missing :-) (I know there's more to it
than that.)

>  Therefore the quintessence of my reply is, do Ruby, do ducktyping
> and ask yourself the question in some
>  months time from now again!

For true duck typing you would just do:

   s.the_method

and live with the consequences :-)


David

-- 
Rails training from David A. Black and Ruby Power and Light:
     Intro to Ruby on Rails  July 21-24      Edison, NJ
  *  Advancing With Rails    August 18-21    Edison, NJ
  * Co-taught by D.A. Black and Erik Kastner
See http://www.rubypal.com for details and updates!