From: Marc Heiler <lists@...>
Date: 2012-10-31T00:51:06+09:00
Subject: Re: Calling a method foo() or an object foo.method_call_here - both

> I think you might be using the wrong language.

Now you advocate to use another language?

Which one precisely?

I also fail to see how your suggestion of using another language has 
anything to do with the problem description.

> If you want to program with functions

There are no "functions" in Ruby.

Even foo() is a private method on class Object.

> view the "object." part as nothing but an annoying
> prefix to the function names

Yes, I did explain to you why that is so.

It is more code to type. See DSLs implemented - you
will not see them prefix ANYTHING at all. That would ruin
the whole purpose of them.

> I don't really see the point of using
> an object oriented language.

That is nice that you have this opinion.

However I am not sure why you need to give your opinion
here in regards to the problem description.

You even recommend to use another language. :)

> That's like buying jazz music and saying that you
> don't like the sound of trumpets.

I buy a car and I want to tinker with it.

If you are happy with the car you bought, that is nice,
but don't come to me and tell me that I should stop
tinkering with MY car.

> You insist on extremely short names, which makes
> absolutely no sense to me.

I do not need to convince you. Why do you put yourself
into the center of what _I_ want? Does it matter to
you on a personal level? And if you are unwilling
or unable to help, which is fine, why do you
comment?

> How often are you calling those methods in your
> code?

I use it for a template language. I use it a lot.

> 1000 times? I've never heard this argument, because
> usually the length of code is *not* determined by
> the length of names but by the general structure

Yes, it is. If I use 100000 instances of this, then
I want it to be as succint and as easy to use as
possible.

If you fail to see the point or advantage in being
succint, that is your problem.

> (which sounds rather repitituous in your case,
> because you said you have different methods with
> the same very long parameter list).

Correct. However, the methods do have differences
in their implementation. Some of them require more
code than others.

> This all sounds very strange to me.

That is good to know. However, how does this help?

> You still haven't said what you're trying to do.

I did so before already. You replied that "you do not
see the point. You also suggested that I should
use another language.

Is this what the mailing list here is about? That
people suggest to use another language?

> Your methods sound like you're generating HTML elements?

In some ways, yes. But you try to limit the framework
and goal of the whole project. Accept that this is
ONE component of what I would *like to* do.

> Then maybe a template engine is what you're looking for?

Which one exactly?

And more importantly, which one would offer the ADVANTAGE
of being succint and terse?

I already know how to be verbose and long.

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