[ruby-talk:00557] Re: A new discussion topic ;-)

On Tue, 03 Aug 1999, you wrote:
>Hi,
>
>In message "[ruby-talk:00544] Re: A new discussion topic ;-)"
>    on 99/08/02, Clemens Hintze <[e-mail]> writes:
>

[...]

>
>No.  Definitely, no.  Your comments, proposals, ideas, and questions
>are always welcome.  Your idea in [ruby-talk:00539] does seem like for
>the new language, so I said why don't you develop your one.

Thank you! But I don't like to develope something for /dev/null, you
know? Who would like a new language, that seems to be a
sister/brother from Ruby, except the OOP? :-/

But perhaps one day in the future, if I have several new ideas that
doesn't fit well into Ruby... :-)

[...]

>|Hmmm! But what can you do with classes, that you cannot do with the
>|prototype paradigm of Self?
>
>Of cource, of cource.  It's not about WHAT they can, but HOW they can.
>Simplicity is not my main concern.  I'm not minimalist.

Hmmm! I understand, that you are not a minimalist. I think, I am not
too. But I want to understand, WHAT would be the difference for you,
to use objects, or classes.

Ruby's `Module' is almost that, what I consider an object in `Self'!
You use `Module's to group things? Fine! You can use objects too!

>
>With classes some things go easier, so that I don't have to abondon
>classes.  For exapmle, suppose you are explaining the prototype based
>language;  you are going to say like this:
>
>  String objects have methods like chop, reverse, lower, etc.

Or you could say:
	Strings have methods like chop, reverse, ..., etc. You may
	find a reference to a string prototype in variable `String'.
	To create a new string, use the prototype's `clone' method, or
	that of any other string!

I really don't see the difference!

>
>You have to mention something like class anyway.  So why do you have
>to remove it from the language.

Why you have to mention classes? Further, if you have to *say*
classes, how is that a reason for using them? I think I have not
grasp your opinion at whole. :-|

Again, I don't see that it is much better than class/instance
concept. I have not enough experience to say that. Only I want to
understand you point-of-view :-)

[...]

>
>Hmm, I didn't think you are going to add it to the Ruby.  It changes
>inheritance model a lot.

It was only a try to introduce `^' for education purposes. 

For the rest... we will see! ;-))))))

>
>|Please going on to be patient with my ideas :-)
>
>Sure.
>                                                matz.

\cle