On Sat, 11 Aug 2001, Mathieu Bouchard wrote:

> On Mon, 6 Aug 2001, Dave Thomas wrote:
> > Mathieu Bouchard <matju / sympatico.ca> writes:
> > > it's not specified whether it's Array#[] or Hash#[], or the
> > > VerySpecialThing#[] (whose semantics are not written down anywhere),
> > > then knowing you need #[] only tells you half of what you need to
> > > know.
> > True, but in a dynamic language with open base classes I'm not sure I
> > see a _viable_ alternative.
> A "_viable_ alternative" (?) may be to stop writing spaghetti frameworks
> and start documenting what you're doing. You shouldn't write spaghetti



It seems Mister Thomas has received my message very negatively.

It won't stop me from admiring him and his work.

My intent with the preceding message was not a flame. Use of the word
"you" in the preceding message does not target Mister Thomas and is there
only as part of a discourse on software development that I happened to
address to him in reply to his claims.

I have to admit I've been repeatedly puzzled by some of Mister Thomas'
comments on dynamic languages, especially the extraordinary one above.
While I owe respect to Mister Thomas, what I'm questioning is his claims
only, and nothing else, and I think in the last mail the only thing I did
was backing extensively my claims, and trying to refute his.

Mister Thomas put me on his killfile.



Now, on a semi-related note, I think I'll take a break from ruby-talk. If
you want to talk to me, you can still reach me at my email address, or on
OpenProjects IRC Network (channels #jmax, #ruby-talk, #demoscene).



Mathieu Bouchard