On Fri, Jan 28, 2011 at 11:41 AM, Adam Prescott <mentionuse / gmail.com>wrote:

> On Fri, Jan 28, 2011 at 5:13 PM, Charles Oliver Nutter
> <headius / headius.com>wrote:
>
> > And it would be even cooler if Ruby supported some form of type-driven
> > pattern matching, so you could have different method bodies for
> > different input types rather than checking them over and over again.
> > But that's a post for another day :)
> >
>
> Not very quackish.
>

Well, you could reinterpret "type driven" to be "respond_to driven". Almost
the same sentiment, but more embracing of OO as described in Rick's talk (
http://confreaks.net/videos/461-rubyconf2010-objects-are-just-objects-aren-t-they
).

Personally, I found it weird to not have overloading when I came from Java,
because I had fallen into a series of patterns based around it that I really
liked (one canonical method, with several overload ones for convenience,
that just take their arguments and translate them to the appropriate method
call of the real one). But now, I think Ruby's bag of argument tricks are
much more powerful. Initialization blocks, optional params through hash
support, optional arguments, etc I think are very powerful (might be nice if
the language supported the hashes a bit better), and really, I almost never
miss overloading, and I think the things you would lose by supporting it
would not be worth it.