On Oct 7, 9:13 am, "Pat Maddox" <perg... / gmail.com> wrote:
> On 10/7/07, Austin Ziegler <halosta... / gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On 10/6/07, Trans <transf... / gmail.com> wrote:
> > > The thing is (and maybe this will help clarify how I see this) the
> > > more I work with Ruby the more I feel like the best code is always of
> > > the form:
>
> > >   module M; end
> > >   module X; end
> > >   module Y; end
>
> > >   class Z
> > >     extend M
> > >     include X
> > >     include Y
> > >   end
>
> > > Such that everything is a module and classes are always just
> > > compositions of modules. This provides maximum code reusability.
>
> > I'll put it clearly: if I were running a Ruby consultancy and a
> > programmer of mine used your methodology for everything (e.g., classes
> > defined by composing modules), I would not keep that programmer on. It's
> > a bad style. Sorry.
>
> Agreed.  That looks painful.

Bahahahahahahahahaha!

You're right! But it's only painful b/c it's what you HAVE to do today
to achieve this level of code reuse. If I had my way, it would as
simple as:

  class X
    def self.foo  # instead of needing M
    ...
  end

  class Y; end

  class Z
    is X
    is Y
  end

And we'd still have complete code reuse.

T.