4 ms·

I wouldn’t call hyper object oriented languages like smalltalk, io, and ruby “better“, just different. The ABI is only a shortcoming if you value aesthetics ove

I wouldn’t call hyper object oriented languages like smalltalk, io, and ruby “better“, just different. The ABI is only a shortcoming if you value aesthetics over other considerations.

matheusmoreira 7y ago
It's not just aesthetics. I mentioned the ABI issue because it is the technical reason why factories exist. Writing "new X" makes X part of the compiled code. This makes it impossible to swap X for Y and delete X later without breaking binary and even source compatibility. This is important for libraries and code reuse. I don't think it is controversial to say those languages are better. A language with limitations that must be constantly worked around must be worse than a language without those problems.
- RaiseProfits 7y ago
  Languages are only good or bad in the context of performing a task. Ranking them in abstract is a silly waste of time that engineers love to emotionally engage in. The ABI is also important for performance! You aren’t making this comparison in good faith. You can easily acknowledge the entire trade off rather than just calling one better.
  - matheusmoreira 7y ago
    You're right. I acknowledge that languages do pay a price for their flexibility and dynamism: efficient implementation becomes much harder.
    - RaiseProfits 7y ago
      I also acknowledge that smalltalk has literally the dream ide and tooling. Ruby will take decades to catch up.