From: William Djaja Tjokroaminata <billtj@...>
Date: 2002-10-17T09:25:19+09:00
Subject: Re: Psyco

Hi,

As I am more into "performance" than "purity" (such as everything should
be an object), in this case I think I favor the Java-like approach.  Ruby
is already "ahead" of Java in the sense that even a number like 5 is an
object, so we can write code such as "5.times".

I think it is good to be able to add methods; I myself added a factorial
method to Integer.  However, in my opinion, if we really want to be
pragmatic, I think we should not allow anyone to modify the "+" method of
a Fixnum, if it can result in increased performance.  Can anyone give a
practical example on why we ever want to modify the "+" method of a
Fixnum?  (Beside an excuse to the IRS, just like the previous Pentium
calculation flaw? :) )

I think this is why C++ provides both virtual and non-virtual
functions; Java approach is having "native" data type and "object".  I am
sorry that I have to refer to these 2 languages often; at least they have
been commonly used for "programming in the large" projects.

Regards,

Bill
=============================================================================
Hal E. Fulton <hal9000@hypermetrics.com> wrote:
>> 1) I don't think that modifying any class that you didn't write is EVER
>>    a good idea (it may be useful and it may even be the best solution
>>    available, but it's still not a good solution).

> I don't agree, but I'm not passionate about it either way.
>  
>> Fixnums looks like objects, they smell like objects, and most of the
>> time they even act like objects, but they are really very very special
>> objects.

> Fixnums will become less special as time 
> goes by. Good or bad in your opinion?

> Hal