3 ms·
I'm 100% with you on simplicity, elegance and beauty. I just demand that as much from the design of the languages I use as from my own code. I've tried to expl
by aconbere 18y ago
I'm 100% with you on simplicity, elegance and beauty. I just demand that as much from the design of the languages I use as from my own code.
I've tried to explain it like this. To me ruby feels Turtles all the way down with respect to Objects, but some kind of nightmare tunnel of interleaved beasts down with Functions.
I don't think I should have to make that compromise, so I'll happily go about writing my ruby when I have to, but I'm waiting for the language that is consistent all the way down.
If I could replace every yield I've ever written in ruby with a .call() I would be so much happier :)
- tptacek 18y agoOk, now I'm not sure I follow. Apart from the performance issues, why can't you replace every method that "yields" with a method that takes the explicit block parameter, and .call() it?
- aconbere 18y agosigh yeah... you could do that, but you often times you have to deal with methods that aren't invoked that way. http://blog.sidu.in/2007/11/ruby-blocks-gotchas.html http://blog.sidu.in/2007/11/ruby-blocks-gotchas.html is a good run down of some of the problems here
- shevy 18y agoNo it is not. You dodged the question again, by throwing a hardly related blog of someone else at it. How many people will use yield _AND_ self.send in the same method please?! That seems like an awfully complicated and contrived example. Who the heck does this?
- MaysonL 18y agobut I'm waiting for the language that is consistent all the way down. Newspeak is coming... http://gbracha.blogspot.com/ http://gbracha.blogspot.com/
- troels 18y ago> I'm waiting for the language that is consistent all the way down. Lua is close.