On Fri, 26 Sep 2003, Thomas Sondergaard wrote:

# I am working on an article on the subject of implementing dynamically typed
# languages on the .net CLR. In .net Types are immutable, ie. once defined
# they cannot be changed. Writing about this I needed to cover the problem of
# namespace collisions. Most modern languages including ruby has introduced
# namespaces to alleviate the namespace collision problem, but the convention
# of adding your own methods to existing classes reintroduces the problem.
# 

Sounds like an interesting article.  I didn't realize you were a .Net'er.  
Looking forward to reading it if it will be available.  Will it?

# Is ruby merely being pragmatic by allowing you to do this, because it seldom
# causes any real problems? Or is it inherently wrong and should not be
# permitted by the language/object model?
# 

Why would it be in Ruby (and other languages) if it were inherently wrong?  
Sounds like kind of a loaded question.

# How do you feel about this feature. Would it be a big loss if ruby didn't
# support it? My own feelings are ambivalent. I have found myself adding
# features to Time, Enumerable, Module and when I do it I always appreciate
# how nice it is that the feature is where it belongs, but I always have this
# nagging fear of collisions that I push to the back of my mind.
# 

If not for this feature, I might not have ended up staying with Ruby when 
I started learning it several years ago.  It's a unifying part of the 
whole dynamic feeling and philosophy of the language.  Ruby without this 
feature would cease to be Ruby to me.

Chad