From: James Britt <jamesUNDERBARb@...>
Date: 2004-05-10T07:46:08+09:00
Subject: Re: [ANN] interface 0.1.0

Gavin Sinclair wrote:

> On Monday, May 10, 2004, 2:26:57 AM, James wrote:
> 
  >>Does the use of interfaces in Ruby encourage a poor (or, say, less
>>robust) design?
> 
> 
> I don't understand this question :/

For example, some developers think Ruby needs static typing.  They find 
a way to add this in, and make it a habit.  This is arguably a Bad Thing 
to the extent that one loses a good deal of the power and flexibility of 
the language.  It's like when Pascal or FORTRAN developers first try 
their hand at OOP; objects and classes (typically) become mere 
namespaces for collections of procedures, and the benefits of OOD are 
lost, because the developer is coding with a foreign mindset.

So I'm wondering if the use of interface classes leads one to design 
Ruby code with a Java mentality.

> 
> 
>>They seem like a handy way to embed assertions into code to ensure that
>>something blows up sooner than later, though perhaps the usual TDD 
>>arguments apply here.
> 
> 
> They do apply, but it's not the end of the story.  Being able to
> selectively apply this interface approach (and/or the StrongTyping
> module) is a good thing.  If I were forced to use it with every class
> I create, it would be frustrating, to say the least.

Quite true.  But how often, I wonder, do people start out using 
something like the StrongTyping module, and later on go back and rip it 
out because it ends up getting in the way?

James