From: bbense+comp.lang.ruby.Sep.27.02@...
Date: 2002-09-28T00:42:46+09:00
Subject: Re: adding overload to ruby

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

In article <13173212366.20020927095942@integ.ru>,
Bulat Ziganshin <bulatz@integ.ru> 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"

- - Exactly, it happens to include the ideas that I think are
  important. You think it needs ideas that I believe to be
  a detriment. There are enough languages now that if you 
  really feel this feature is important then you should 
  probably be using a different language. 


>
>bclrS20tse> - - One of the fundemental things that makes ruby Ruby is that 
>bclrS20tse> it is not a typed language. This gives the programmer a great
>bclrS20tse> deal of flexiblity and power, but every freedom comes with a price. 
>bclrS20tse> The price of this flexiblity is giving up the security blanket
>bclrS20tse> of type checking. 
>
>you want to enforce "great flexibility"? :)
>
>

- - Yes, precisely. I think this feature would promote a kind of 
  thinking that would take a lot of the fun out of programming 
  Ruby. Currently, you need to take a step back and think about
  exactly what objects your methods can work with. What's the 
  minimum requirements I need to make this method work? How
  can I make this work without checking the type? Adding this
  "feature" would discourage programmers from thinking in a 
  new and generic way. Most of the time, type checking arguments
  is just the short-sited way out of the problem. 

- - Ruby is a joy in that it encourages you to think in new
  ways, but is doesn't shove them down your throat. This 
  balance is a very delicate thing, it would only take 
  a few "features" or syntactic sugar to totally destroy
  that balance. You can use java/C++ styles in Ruby, but 
  IMHO it should be just a bit awkward and make you think
  
  "hmm, this doesn't seem very Ruby-like."

- - Booker C. Bense  


-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.2

iQCVAwUBPZR1hWTWTAjn5N/lAQFbugQAiL22aPRM85I4a6OXDjMp5DxOH6gqLEIi
hgxP5/qxPadlLa7pMQg3UauAnpUbYqT5/PWtpPABojJf1Qdzhfw2wn4WdeisTCS2
wAfDMS55HlImZcTE40GBN6OLeB6lF61z7USY2W2EdG7cAsGTnwRQgPhhWG81vK/w
Q+QENEAWgwM=
=KY+p
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----