From: Michel Demazure <michel@...>
Date: 2010-02-13T17:42:54+09:00
Subject: Re: "Code must be Chunkable"

J旦rg W Mittag wrote:
> J旦rg W Mittag wrote:
>> [...]
>> I believe that, like OO or logic programming, DCI is only going to
>> start to *really* shine (or, as the case may be, bomb spectacularly)
>> when we have DCI languages.
> 
> BTW: I *do* realize that this contradicts what James and Trygve have
> been saying, that DCI is a paradigm that enables "good OO" in
> *existing mainstream* languages.
> 
> jwm

I am not familiar enough with the DCI paradigm. But from times to times, 
I feel that Ruby does not go far enough with duck typing. Modules are 
not really objects ("everything is an object", they say), but a way to 
assign methods to objects "from outside".

Yes, but you can quack like a duck ("include duck"), then miauw like a 
cat ("include cat"), but you cannot come back to quacking. "Once a duck, 
always a duck !", ODAD !

Is there a deep reason forbidding a more clever dispatching allowing to 
de-include modules and/or re-include modules ?

md
-- 
Posted via http://www.ruby-forum.com/.