On Sat, Nov 29, 2008 at 2:28 PM, Brian Takita <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 28, 2008 at 4:28 PM, Scott Taylor
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> On Nov 28, 2008, at 11:52 AM, David Chelimsky wrote:
>>
>>> On Thu, Nov 27, 2008 at 8:17 PM, Mark Wilden <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On Thu, Nov 27, 2008 at 5:57 PM, Brian Takita <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> I'm wondering if this is a discussion about taste.
>>>>
>>>> I think you're right. I've been using the 'def self.foo' style in various
>>>> languages for almost 20 years, so of course it feels more natural to me.
>>>> These languages (except for Smalltalk) had nowhere near the
>>>> metaprogramming
>>>> capability nor 'objects all the way down'-ness of Ruby, and 'class <<
>>>> self'
>>>> is one of those things.
>>>>
>>>> ///ark
>>>
>>> FWIW, the blog that led to this discussion suggested a performance
>>> impact as well. As RSpec has gotten dinged for being slower than
>>> alternatives, that interested me, so I did a little experiment def'ing
>>> methods 10k times with def self.method and class << self; def method
>>> ....
>>>
>>
>> I'd be curious to see those benchmarks.
> Here are some benchmarks I did.
Duh, I didn't paste the link;
http://gist.github.com/30285
>>
>> Also - re: performance: I've always wondered why RSpec (and other ruby
>> projects, for that matter) aren't using Kernel#autoload instead of
>> Kernel#require. If we used autoload, we wouldn't have to load the code
>> for, say, a matcher which is never used in a project.
>>
>> Scott
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> rspec-users mailing list
>> [email protected]
>> http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users
>>
>
_______________________________________________
rspec-users mailing list
[email protected]
http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users
