Re: class vrs. method

Nice addition to the discussion. I haven't yet set up a module, but I've 
been looking at it. Your point is well taken (assuming I correctly grasp 
it). Thanks!

t.

David A. Black wrote:
> Hi --
>
> On Sun, 7 Dec 2008, Tom Cloyd wrote:
>
>> I've been thinking about this question for days, and have yet to come 
>> up with a satisfactory answer. I have deep respect for the "smarts" 
>> available on this list, so I'll toos the question out here. I've been 
>> programming in Ruby for possibly a couple of years, learning what I 
>> need to know to get something done, at the time I need to know it. I 
>> don't have much time for pure Ruby-study, although I much wish I did. 
>> I'm presently writing database program in ruby, using only ruby (no 
>> database engine), which will manage a network of nodes (labels) and 
>> relationships (also labels). It's simple, but potentially very 
>> powerful, and a great opportunity for me to push into new territory 
>> with Ruby. It's coming along well, and I'm much enjoying the experience.
>>
>> I'm getting it done by writing a number of methods. I keep looking at 
>> other people's programming, and I see many, many classes. Some of 
>> these classes look pointless to me. A mere method would have done the 
>> trick. Why a "class"? I personally feel no need whatsoever to 
>> actually USE one. I'm getting everything done easily and artfully 
>> with mere methods. I simply don't get it - about classes. It looks 
>> like an elegant idea, and in more complex programming I can imagine 
>> why one might use them, but...I've simply cannot find a reason to 
>> bother.
>>
>> I've read a lot about them, but...here's my question:
>>
>> Am I missing something? Can anyone give me a compelling reason to 
>> write fewer methods and more classes?
>>
>> If anyone's interested, the program to which I referred may be 
>> examined at
>>
>> http://tomcloyd.com/misc/setnet.txt
>>
>> (I had to change the file extension to txt, as 'rb' refused to load 
>> in my browser, and might well do that in yours as well.)
>>
>> As I've puzzled about this for days, I'm very interested to see what 
>> better informed people have to say about this question. Please 
>> understand that I do grasp the basics, but do NOT see what the 
>> compelling reason is to use a class in a reasonably simple program. 
>> Thanks!
>
> I'll just add to the answers you've already received by saying:
> remember that classes are not the whole story behind a more
> object-oriented approach. Objects are :-) There are ways you can
> engineer objects that don't necessarily use classes, but that do give
> you the advantages of the kind of encapsulation and stylistic gains
> that people have been talking about.
>
> In particular, I'm thinking of modules, which can be used to add
> functionality to a particular object as well as to all instances of a
> particular class. And/or just defining one or more methods on a
> particular object.
>
>
> David
>