From: Mike Stephens Date: 2010-10-06T20:49:14+09:00 Subject: Re: The Third Ruby - Ever Comes Out at Night? Robert Klemme wrote: > Your statement sounds a bit like you wanted to use module nesting to > also model caller callee relationships. IMHO that would be a waste > because the caller callee relationship is already modeled in code via > actual calls. That's what I was floating. In this thread we're mulling over what procedural Ruby means and therefore whether Ruby does it easily, and whether the end result is a viable style. Procedural languages varied but typically your procedures would all be at the top level so their relationships are only revealed by the code, as you say. The objection to this is the absence of encapsulation and therefore the prospect of people poking into your 'black boxes'. That argument hinges around how much you can trust your fellow programmer. I recently had a technical lead who was very good at programming including eg .NET. One day I asked him which language he liked the most. He replied surprisingly that he had recently become impressed with PHP. I got the impression he was implying it took all day to do things in C# whereas it takes no time in PHP. From what I've seen of PHP it is essentially procedural. Perhaps when you have lots of simple short programs, a procedural design is just fine. -- Posted via http://www.ruby-forum.com/.