4 ms·

I don't think what you're saying is really much at odds with many OOP languages. Unless I'm missing something, Ruby's mixins and duck-typing (care about what me

I don't think what you're saying is really much at odds with many OOP languages. Unless I'm missing something, Ruby's mixins and duck-typing (care about what messages an object responds to rather than it's type) comes awfully close to what you're looking for. Granted, something like duck-typing is more of a practice or pattern than something that's terribly well supported by the language (it's up to you to put safeguards that the object being passed to you does what you want it to do), but it's certainly possible and describes most well-written Ruby code.

jwdunne 9y ago
Ruby influenced my opinion. What I described above wasn't duck typing plus responds_to - maybe it sounds like a whole lot of sugar on that. It was keeping the taxonomy separate, with behavioural sharing through composition only. I was elaborating on how parameters would work - do you allow taxonomies there or keep it separate still? It's at odds with Ruby because it's still easier to inherit than it is to compose an object. As much as I love the language for its flexibility, it is still based on the idea of coupling the taxonomy with the object itself. I'm sure an emulation of what I describe is possible to a degree in Ruby.