"Duck Typing" or "No need for abstract classes"

ruby-talk
1

Lähettäjä: Edgardo Hames <ehames@gmail.com>
Aihe: "Duck Typing" or "No need for abstract classes"

Hi, you all.

I'm working on a new small project where several network protocols are
to be supported. I had an idea about how to implement it and it
resembled something like this.

class Protocol
  abstract :login, :logout, :send, :receive
end

class MyProtocol < Protocol
  def login
    # does something useful
  end
  ... # so on
end

Then my network client would just call the methods of a Protocol
object without caring about the actual classes that implement it (yes,
you're right, I come from a static typing background). But then I read
something (I don't remember where :frowning: ) which said that agile languages
don't need to implement so many patterns and I think I saw the light!

I don't need a Protocol class, the network client should just call the
methods of the protocol and duck typing should do all the magic. Am I
right? Am I coming a little closer to walking the Ruby Way?

Please, post a positive reply and you just may save me a couple of
therapy sessions :stuck_out_tongue:

Yep, you're right. It doesn't matter what the type of an object you
have as long as it responds to the method you're trying to invoke.

If it walks like a...

Kind Regards,
Ed

E

P.S. Object#respond_to? is a good method to keep in mind.