On 6/19/07, dblack / wobblini.net <dblack / wobblini.net> wrote:

> On Wed, 20 Jun 2007, Rick DeNatale wrote:

> > Coming from a background in Smalltalk, my preference would be if this
> > machinery were more visible and official, but Matz has his reasons for
> > not doing so.  For one thing, not documenting it, and hiding it from
> > methods like ancestors and class makes it easier to tinker with as the
> > language evolves without "officially" breaking backward compatibility.
>
> Does that mean that no one who's ever used Smalltalk can ever think
> that it's right for Ruby to deviate from Smalltalk? :-)

Well David,

In short, NO.

Yesterday I was mulling over three or four topics to write about, your post
tipped me over, so after a day of thought and editting the longish:

http://talklikeaduck.denhaven2.com/articles/2007/06/21/where-i-come-from

-- 
Rick DeNatale

My blog on Ruby
http://talklikeaduck.denhaven2.com/