On 10/7/07, Trans <transfire / gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> 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.
>
>
>

You misunderstand me.  What looks painful to me is having the behavior
of a class tucked away behind 15 different modules, instead of being
right in the class where it belongs.

Pat