From: Robert Klemme <shortcutter@...>
Date: 2010-10-06T20:56:40+09:00
Subject: Re: The Third Ruby - Ever Comes Out at Night?

On Wed, Oct 6, 2010 at 1:49 PM, Mike Stephens <rubfor@recitel.net> wrote:
> 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.

Does he know Ruby?  If so, why did PHP impress him more?  That would
be interesting to learn.

> Perhaps when you have lots of simple short programs, a procedural design
> is just fine.

For small programs (probably one off) it is usually not so important
what style you pick.  I often find myself creating at least a few
classes even for those.  I find that convenient (especially in Ruby
where the overhead is really small, often I can get away with a Struct
one liner).  YMMV though.

Kind regards

robert


-- 
remember.guy do |as, often| as.you_can - without end
http://blog.rubybestpractices.com/