Hi --

On Wed, 13 Dec 2006, J2M wrote:

> Erik's code offered a clean way of extracting some of the aspects that
> can be re-used, whether I call the remaining code business logic or not
> in this example is irrelevant, but it does present a neat way of
> structuring things but being reminded that I have a lot to learn
> doesn't always feel great!
>
> The big lesson I got from Erik was in reflecting on both your comments
> and Erik's example code is the clarity of understanding comes from the
> ability to grasp and reflect on a number of principles concurrently.
> That can be a very hard thing to do - keeping all those principles in
> mind at the same time. Breaking the code into those 3 methods helped
> encapsulate those concepts in a way that was less effort to think
> about. To me it wasn't about inspiring awe but rather removing the
> complexity.

Definitely.  I think breaking the code down is fine (I might avoid
adding to Kernel, but that's another story :-)  I was chiming in more
on some of the stuff Erik raised by way of context.  And of course
there's a long history of the dividing of "regular" from "meta" in
Ruby, and a fairly long history of my skepticism of it.  Erik's post
just put me in mind of the whole thing.


David

-- 
Q. What's a good holiday present for the serious Rails developer?
A. RUBY FOR RAILS by David A. Black (http://www.manning.com/black)
    aka The Ruby book for Rails developers!
Q. Where can I get Ruby/Rails on-site training, consulting, coaching?
A. Ruby Power and Light, LLC (http://www.rubypal.com)