From: dblack@...
Date: 2002-09-27T20:42:40+09:00
Subject: Re: adding overload to ruby

Hello --

On Fri, 27 Sep 2002, Bulat Ziganshin wrote:

> Hello bbense+comp,
>
> Thursday, September 26, 2002, 11:56:30 PM, you wrote:
>
> >>why you don't want to add overload to mainstream ruby?
> >>
>
> bclrS20tse> - - This is not Ruby. If you really want typed arguements, then you
> bclrS20tse> should not be using ruby.
>
> ruby is not great technical advance. it's large collection of
> excellent ideas from many languages, carefully glued together. as
> Newton says "i see far enough because i was supported by gigants"

Ruby is a system.  Parts of that system manifestly resemble parts of
other systems.  The idea that Ruby should or even can be added on to
ad libitum, like a Lego project, does not follow from this.

I wonder whether it's the Perl example that leads to this idea that
individual programming languages should offer everything to everyone,
like a menu at a Jersey diner.  Not that Perl actually does -- and its
architects know it doesn't -- but even if it's semi-humorous, there's
a lot of currency to the "Swiss Army chainsaw" view of Perl.  It's
important to remember that this incurs no obligation on the part of
other languages.


David

-- 
David Alan Black                      | Register for RubyConf 2002!
home: dblack@candle.superlink.net     | November 1-3
work: blackdav@shu.edu                | Seattle, WA, USA
Web:  http://pirate.shu.edu/~blackdav | http://www.rubyconf.com