3 ms·

I still like Ruby. 15+ years in, I find myself in the camp of not wanting it to change. 25 year old me would have been totally jazzed about the addition of name

• zelphirkalt 1y ago
  Doesn't Ruby essentially already have namespaces, in terms of having modules? If one has proper modules, why would one ever need an alternative, weaker, concept for referring to things?
  • Manfred 1y ago
    To make sure code loaded from gems doesn’t shadow the namespace of the application.
    • dudeinjapan 1y ago
      Right. Today Ruby has essentially a global namespace, where every defined module/class/const is put in the same "global dumping ground" and can override/"monkey patch" each other. Ruby 3.5 will introduce a new language keyword "namespace" that scopes behavior to that namespace. class Foo def foo; puts "foo"; end end namespace Bar class Foo def foo; puts "bar"; end end Foo.new.foo #=> "bar" end Foo.new.foo #=> "foo" Fun times. This is intended for isolated code loading similar to "modules" in Python or ES6, but I am worried it will be abused badly. I'm also unsure whether they will add a "use Namespace" construct... See here: https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/issues/21311 https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/issues/21311
• codeduck 1y ago
  In your camp, waving a flag. I love ruby's simplicity when it comes to rapidly prototyping something, and find the wails about production type errors puzzling. Only thing I've come near that gave me as much joy was Elixir, and I simply didn't have time to pick it up more than the most generic basics. my mind just likes a.any? {|x| x.someCondition? }