From: "James Britt (rubydev)" <james@...>
Date: 2002-01-25T10:30:43+09:00
Subject: RE: OOP UI Design

>
> On Thu, Jan 24, 2002 at 10:44:45AM +0900, James Britt (rubydev) wrote:
> > I think the issue (possbly raised by Holub) is that, regardless of how
> > the getter derives the return value, the client becomes dependant on
> > that value type.  So, if num_monkeys really should return a complex number
> > rather than an integer, client code breaks when that's changed.
>
> *Very* interesting.  Any pointer to more information on the subject?


This link (http://javaworld.org/javaworld/jw-06-2001/jw-0622-letters.html) has some
discussion in the topic, based on Holub's comments.

Search the page for "holub" and "evil" :)

Actually, there is this statement by Mr. Holub:

"On the other hand, I think that Wm. Paul's article is quite sound, though as you point
out, I'd take it a step further and eliminate the get/set methods -- you don't actually
need them."

He is refering to the article found here:
http://javaworld.org/javaworld/jw-05-2001/jw-0518-encapsulation.html

And *that* article is subtitled:
"The principles of information hiding go beyond the Java language facility for
encapsulation "

So, to try to keep this about Ruby:

What are the risks in using Java applications as a design base when attempting to build
something in Ruby?  There have been a few discussions here where someone advocates
building the Ruby version of [SomeJavaApp].  Given that a language guides you into certain
design decisions that you might not have made in another language, at what point does
copying a Java application become counter-productive when using Ruby?

Put another way, what (if anything) do Java developers do that a Ruby developer wouldn't,
because Java prevents or hinders a design path that is available in Ruby?


James

>
> Massimiliano
>
>