David...

> -----Original Message-----
> From: David Alan Black [mailto:dblack / candle.superlink.net]
> Sent: Wednesday, December 05, 2001 1:41 PM
> To: ruby-talk ML
> Subject: [ruby-talk:27589] Re: Package Naming
> 
> 
> Hi --
> 
> On Thu, 6 Dec 2001, Rich Kilmer wrote:
> 
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: David Alan Black [mailto:dblack / candle.superlink.net]
> > > Sent: Wednesday, December 05, 2001 1:33 PM
> > > To: ruby-talk ML
> > > Subject: [ruby-talk:27587] Re: Package Naming
> > > [ . . . ]
> > > I'm still not getting this.  I know Java does it, but still...
> > > Why should software be known to its users and the system that
> > > uses it by, in the first instance, its provenance?  What
> > > happens when someone else takes over development?  Or someone
> > > moves?  Or....
> > >
> >
> > You get into refactoring hell ;)
> > (from someone who had to do this MANY times)
> 
> 
> So then, could we, ummmm, not do it?
> 

Well...the problem with Java is that the packages and paths are the same.  So my package imports are tied to my path.  Also, wherever I use a class I have to import it because of strong typing.  This is not the same for Ruby.  I can 'require' one place for the whole Ruby session and the modules/classes are now in the ObjectSpace.  So using files that match the domain (com/domain/library) for a 'require' does not introduce the same impact on refactoring in Ruby in the event that the domain/library (file path) needs to shift.  Having to update a single require is cake compared to Java where I have to update all the import statements...everywhere I use them...ahhh...man I am glad to be coding in Ruby!

-Rich