Skip to content

Comment on Ruby 3x3: Matz, Koichi, and Tenderlove on the Future of Ruby Performanceparent

Comments

Please don't look elsewhere for conceptual purity. Ruby is absolutely ideal for exploring any concept that can be expressed in object oriented programming, and even many that are expressed in algebra.

Ruby has been designed fundamentally as an Alan Kay style object oriented programming language. In that light in my opinion it is more suitable for conceptual purity than most other scripting languages.

DHH's criticism of SRP has to do with legitimate drawbacks. I think all of us have experienced the over-engineering SRP can invoke when applied naievely. Also note that DHH's framework Rails has made significant steps in enabling SRP for modern Rails applications, so this is not a flat out rejection of the idea.

I'm not sure Ruby is ideal for exploring OO concepts, as fine a language as it is. Missing, for example, are: inheritance of class attributes/methods, constraints on overriding methods (e.g. declaring as abstract or un-overridable/final), dynamic attributes.

Thankfully it's a very flexible and forgiving language, so there are third-party libraries (e.g. Hashie, ActiveSupport's Concern) to accomplish these kinds of things, but the core language doesn't offer them.

AboutSource Built by g1lg1l

Hackerly is an independent reader for Hacker News, built on the public HN API. Not affiliated with Y Combinator.