[#1338] 1.8.0: possible socket problem with mswin32 builds — Jos Backus <jos@...>
Fyi: I tried the following command with two Ruby distributions on Windows 2003
5 messages
2003/08/05
[#1342] SEGV in GC under Linux — Dave Thomas <dave@...>
A while back I was getting double free()s reported on my MAC box when
5 messages
2003/08/05
[#1364] Broken REXML in Ruby 1.8 — Alexander Bokovoy <a.bokovoy@...>
Greetings!
1 message
2003/08/06
[#1378] differences between Module and Class ? — Mathieu Bouchard <matju@...>
25 messages
2003/08/11
[#1387] Re: differences between Module and Class ?
— matz@... (Yukihiro Matsumoto)
2003/08/12
Hi,
[#1442] Re: differences between Module and Class ?
— Mathieu Bouchard <matju@...>
2003/08/21
[#1452] Re: differences between Module and Class ?
— matz@... (Yukihiro Matsumoto)
2003/08/22
Hi,
[#1469] Re: differences between Module and Class ?
— Mathieu Bouchard <matju@...>
2003/08/23
[#1470] Re: differences between Module and Class ?
— matz@... (Yukihiro Matsumoto)
2003/08/24
Hi,
[#1472] Re: differences between Module and Class ?
— Mathieu Bouchard <matju@...>
2003/08/24
[#1444] Re: differences between Module and Class ?
— ts <decoux@...>
2003/08/21
>>>>> "M" == Mathieu Bouchard <matju@sympatico.ca> writes:
[#1381] proc/block with return — Mathieu Bouchard <matju@...>
9 messages
2003/08/11
[#1394] Std lib and updating PickAxe (was Re: proc/block with return) — "Gavin Sinclair" <gsinclair@...>
> [Dave wrote:]
5 messages
2003/08/13
[#1400] subclassing Structs — Eugene Scripnik <Eugene.Scripnik@...>
I'm trying to create class which behaves as struct (almost) and has some
5 messages
2003/08/13
[#1406] _id2ref bug? — Ryan Pavlik <rpav@...>
While debugging some caching code, I've come across a segfault related
22 messages
2003/08/14
[#1407] Re: _id2ref bug?
— matz@... (Yukihiro Matsumoto)
2003/08/14
Hi,
[#1413] Re: _id2ref bug? (REPRODUCED, short)
— Ryan Pavlik <rpav@...>
2003/08/14
On Fri, 15 Aug 2003 01:57:18 +0900
[#1415] Re: _id2ref bug? (REPRODUCED, short)
— matz@... (Yukihiro Matsumoto)
2003/08/15
Hi,
[#1416] Re: _id2ref bug? (another break)
— Ryan Pavlik <rpav@...>
2003/08/15
On Fri, 15 Aug 2003 09:21:39 +0900
[#1417] Re: _id2ref bug? (another break)
— nobu.nokada@...
2003/08/15
Hi,
[#1418] Re: _id2ref bug? (another break)
— Ryan Pavlik <rpav@...>
2003/08/15
On Fri, 15 Aug 2003 12:35:32 +0900
[#1424] Re: _id2ref bug? (another break)
— ts <decoux@...>
2003/08/15
>>>>> "n" == nobu nokada <nobu.nokada@softhome.net> writes:
[#1447] ruby-mode.el — Ryan Pavlik <rpav@...>
Attached is a patch for ruby-mode.el that adds font hilighting for
7 messages
2003/08/21
[#1450] Re: [PATCH] ruby-mode.el
— Ryan Pavlik <rpav@...>
2003/08/21
Crud, my mail has been slow, and I just got this back, but I realize I
[#1454] NODE_DSTR and NODE_EVSTR? — Robert Feldt <feldt@...>
How are "dynamic" strings represented internally?
7 messages
2003/08/22
Re: differences between Module and Class ?
From:
"Chad Fowler" <chadfowler@...>
Date:
2003-08-24 19:34:18 UTC
List:
ruby-core #1475
Original Message: ----------------------------------------------- >>On Sun, 24 Aug 2003, Chad Fowler wrote: >> >>> Matju, is there any reason to do this other than idealism? >> >>Chad, wasn't the module/class distinction a similarly "idealistic" move in >>the first place? I mean it seems to be on the same level of thought than >>what I propose. Then why is the so-called "idealism" inappropriate when it >>comes from me? >> I didn't say that idealism isn't OK. But, it's a lot harder to change something due to idealism than it is to create something idealistically. I fully understand the desire to unify design concepts in the language, but I haven't heard anything that makes it seem worth it at this stage in Ruby's life. >>> We've beaten this thing to death in terms of why *not* to do it, >> >>I can't share this opinion. A lot may have been said, but I suspect that >>not so much has been understood, and certainly that few people have >>participated in it. You seem to have a different standard on what "beating >>to death" may mean. >> Obviously. :) >>> But, why *should* this change? >> >>I've presented this already. [ruby-core:1448]. The actual advantages may >>get more precise as the details get more precise. >> I read ruby-core:1448 both when it was originally sent and today. As I said, I can understand point #1 (unification of concepts). Points 2-4 are subjective, and I don't know many (or really anyone else) who would agree with them. >>> What is the real practical benefit? >> >>You mean that the reasons I've presented yet are not practical enough for >>you. I'm sorry I can't help you for now, especially as I don't completely >>understand the current situation yet, even after "beating this thing to >>death" as you call it. >> >>> What could we do that we can't do now? >> >>Not all changes worth doing fall into that category. Else chances are that >>I would have sticked with another language and never would have bothered >>with Ruby. >> Certainly not all choices are based on tangible benefit. But the choice to change a language that thousands of people are using should hopefully be backed by some kind of tangible benefit. If it's true that the current choices were made based on idealism and yours are as well, they cancel each other out. Not to mention the fact that the initial choices were made by Matz. :) Still interested in hearing a tangible reason to make the change (maybe an example of where real MI would be helpful?), Chad