Mislav Marohnić wrote: > On 12/4/06, Karl Guertin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > I only intend to point out that the philosophy > > differences do not exist because people are ignorant, as implied by > > Mislav in the OP, but stem from people operating under different > > conditions. > > > Well said. I never really meant to imply that people are ignorant except in > the case of associative usage of the Array object.
If that is so, then you must think whoever decided to extend the built-in Array object is also ignorant. If you don't accept that (and clearly you don't), then your criticism is completely without merit. The example of for..in is just the obvious case, the underlying issue is that once you extend a built-in object, it is no longer available in its original form. Anyone trying to create their own subclass, for whatever reason, is stuck with the extended object. They have a choice of accommodating the extensions or not using the library. It has been stated here that a primary goal of Prototype is to reduce the amount of code that a programmer must write, and that considerations such as execution speed and architectural cleanliness take a back seat. Now that is fine, but to generalise that anyone affected by that decision is ignorant is hardly reason argument. A much better response is to accept the shortcomings of Prototype, make sure people using the library are aware of them and work toward attenuating their effects, either by suggesting work-arounds or fixing them at the source. -- Rob --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Ruby on Rails: Spinoffs" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-spinoffs?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
