Trans wrote:
> 
> On Feb 26, 10:45 am, "Jones, Brian - McClatchy Interactive"
> <bjo... / mcclatchyinteractive.com> wrote:
>> I'd be at least a little interested in potentially offering developers
>> the chance to 'lock' their classes from monkey patches.  This could be
>> useful to the 'core' library that comes with Ruby, and to at least make
>> developers look at extension points provided via an actual API instead
>> of just immediately jumping on monkey patching for solving all problems.
> 
> That's ridiculous.

Fears about open classes sound very much like what people say about 
dynamic typing.

"#{@core_feature} is unpredictable!"

"#{@core_feature} creates problems that cannot be found until run-time!"

"#{@core_feature} is unsafe!"

"#{@core_feature} should be locked down!"

It's not that these claims are entirely untrue, it's just that, in real 
life, most people simply do not encounter the  alleged problems.

Code that is poorly written or does not play well with others tends to 
get discarded.



-- 
James Britt

"Trying to port the desktop metaphor to the Web is like working
on how to fuel your car with hay because that is what horses eat."
    - Dare Obasanjo