Overall, I thought it was one of the best-written pieces of of mass-market journalism about our community that I've read in... well, years actually. Stuff like this should be encouraged.
156 karma · joined February 25, 2008
Overall, I thought it was one of the best-written pieces of of mass-market journalism about our community that I've read in... well, years actually. Stuff like this should be encouraged.
a) represent about 15% of the actual semantic content of the presentation; and
b) are shaped by the consideration that there's a limit to how much code you can put on a slide and have it still be readable.
A lot of this material has been covered in more detail on my blog (http://avdi.org/devblog) For instance, I wrote a whole article about Maybe, NullObject, and the limits of the ability to make objects falsy here: http://avdi.org/devblog/2011/05/30/null-objects-and-falsines...
Personally, I think Ruby hits a sweet spot here: the privacy curtain is strong enough that Ruby WILL let you know when you've stepped off the path of using methods which are part of the stable API. But you can then tell Ruby "yes, I understand, and I know what I'm doing".
P.S. Would you mind getting in touch with me? I have a script to share with you guys.
;-)
Not that I'm complaining, mind you, I actually learned something from this comment. Thanks!
I don't think it makes a particularly good case for AOP myself. AOP is just another, slightly more structured, form of the same thing - a structured COME FROM (see INTERCAL), if you will. The ability to globally append to or modify arbitrary functions in existing code is no substitute for a) limited extension within the scope where the extension is actually used and b) actually coding classes with well-documented extension points, whether Emacs-style "hooks" or some other mechanism.