This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
[7:25pm] nkallen_: [7:18pm] nkallen_: but my point is conceptual and not about ruby | |
[7:25pm] nkallen_: [7:18pm] nkallen_: it applies to every oo language and also I might argue to functional languages | |
[7:25pm] nkallen_: [7:18pm] nkallen_: which is to structure a program around the ability to layer on enhanced functionality and ensure that no assumptions are hardcoded by abstracting over the manufacture of objects | |
[7:25pm] nkallen_: [7:19pm] nkallen_: in the literature, these techniques are called DI, decorators, and factories. | |
[7:25pm] nkallen_: [7:20pm] nkallen_: i like these terms because they reflect the concepts that are at work. because ruby might have little ceremony (you don't ever need to name a thing "Factory") doesn't mean the concept of "any object that responds to #new and returns an object that obeys such-and-such ducktype" | |
[7:25pm] nkallen_: [7:20pm] nkallen_: is not a real and useful concept to think about. | |
[7:26pm] wycats_: My concern is about adoption | |
[7:27pm] wycats_: By calling these thin |