From: Christian <christians@...>
Date: 2001-01-20T21:43:12+09:00
Subject: [ruby-talk:9599] Re: 101 Misconceptions About Dynamic Languages


"Josh Stern" <jstern@foshay.citilink.com> wrote:

> At http://www.ruby-lang.org/en/compar.html, Matz says
> "Ruby's functions (methods) are not first class objects"
> but I don't understand this point, actually.  Ruby does
> have the 'Proc' class which is a function object.
> Just like in C++, an instance method requires object to use
> it.  However, one can easily pass tuples of
> <object,methodName>, <moduleName,methodName>,
> <object,methodSymbol>, etc.
> which amounts to the same thing in Ruby because the thing
> that is invoked by a function call in the language
> is 'the thing bound to that name', not a hunk of
> code at a machine address.

Fairynuff. It is true that I do not know Ruby other than academically, and
even that knowledge is tainted by opinion and unsupported by practical
experience. I am quite probably adding more noise than signal here anyways,
although my intention was simply to learn about Ruby by reading the list.
The 101 Misconceptions thread has been continued this long simply because I
found the discussion interesting (and apparently others did too), which is
an abuse of the list. In my defence, I offered to move the thread to private
email a few days ago :). It should die a natural death, and I should pull my
head in and read more, type less.

> -= Josh

Christian