On Jun 25, 2013, at 1:36 PM, Igor Stasenko <[email protected]> wrote:
> On 25 June 2013 13:29, Esteban Lorenzano <[email protected]> wrote: >> I really cannot believe that you can consider >> >> is: #string >> >> better programing than >> >> isString >> >> no matter the implementation, and no matter if you can still found senders >> of #string... string programming (or symbol programing) is just bad, bad, >> bad. >> Is so bad that is axiomatic... I cannot even explain why... :) >> > > you are highly subjective here. :) > > given two expressions: > > object isString > and > object is: #string > > to me they are equal in their beautiness or ugliness, if you like. with the difference that in one: 1) you has a clearer and more expressive message 2) you have a simple message send with an immediate return (and not a comparisson) and in the other... you don't. but well, I already explained my opinion... and I think we are not going to agree. So I rest, I'm over of this :) > > >> and that just because we do not like to have 20 methods (or whatever the >> number) isBlah in object? >> >> sorry, I completely disagree with the idea. >> >> now, I agree that some of the "is" methods should be removed, but that is a >> complete different discussion :) >> > right. but that was the proposal to remove them first (by replacing with #is:) > and then gradually deal with them later (but already having cleaned > Object protocol). > >> Esteban >> > > > -- > Best regards, > Igor Stasenko. >
