So it's really a question of cost vs. benefits. I think the cost is quite high. Then again, I'm new to Ruby.
i'm going on 7 years of full time ruby and it's bitten less than 5 times.
Good to know. I don't really see it as a major problem. I was just trying to get a handle on the reasoning behind the design choice.
stick with it a while, if you hate it you have the option of putting parens
together with each and every method call - ruby won't stop you!
I tend to stick with coding conventions, so if everyone else starts doing it, I will as well I'm not convinced that Ruby will be the OOP language to rule all OOP languages, but it is full of interesting ideas, many of which I haven't seen before, so just learning about it helps me to become a better programmer, even though I might never use it professionally. I don't find it trivial to grasp, though. There is a lot of things going on implicitly, which is both good and bad, mostly good I think.
Anyway, thanks for the explanations everyone. I got a lot out of it
One thing, at least with RoR, is if the first param is a hash then
parens are necessary. e.g.
form_tag({:action=>:update, :id=>1})
I can't remember what error gets thrown if there aren't parens.
Myself, I like not having to type parens. RoR's coding style for patches
specifies using parens though (which is probably best, to avoid
ambiguities or errors).
Wow, public, private and protected are actually method call. I wonder
how they implemented that. Now I HAVE to get the source code.
See if the following helps: code in classes isn't compiled, it is
executed. Defining a function is a discrete step that runs (and returns
nil), and that you can listen for.
Like everyone else who has replied to this thread -- they're either
explicitly stated or alluded to the fact that it's purely a matter of
choice.
My this year point is as follows:
To use or not to use -- is a matter of taste.
To have a rule for doing either -- is a matter of clear writing.
To use an appropriate rule -- is a matter of productivity.
Constantly improve the rules -- is a metter of progress.
You do, you have, and you will: a library with a well-designed API is
essentially a DSL.
···
On Fri, Sep 22, 2006 at 04:46:29AM +0900, Joe Ruby MUDCRAP-CE wrote:
I feel like such a n00b -- I don't think I've ever created a DSL and
don't expect to in the near future.
--
Keith Gaughan -- kmgaughan@eircom.net -- http://talideon.com/
One thousand years ago we wouldn't have known the news outside our village.
I wish things were like that now.
I'm not convinced that Ruby will be the OOP language to rule all OOP languages, but it is full of interesting ideas, many of which I haven't seen before, so just learning about it helps me to become a better programmer, even though I might never use it professionally. I don't find it trivial to grasp, though. There is a lot of things going on implicitly, which is both good and bad, mostly good I think.