[EVALUATION] - E03e - The Ruby Object Model (Summary)

[Steven Jenkins]

DONT SEND ME ANY MORE FREAKING EMAIL. I am simply not interested and
will respond to it ON THE LIST..

Thanks for the heads up.

*plonk*

 

[Ilias Lazaridis]

Ilias Lazaridis wrote:
[...]

dsc = dedicated singleton class

sco = singleton class object

asco = attached singleton class object

"singleton instance" = the one and only instance
"singleton method" = a method, exclusively for one instance
"singleton class" = a class, exclusively for one instance

=>

sco = Singleton class object

sc = Singleton class

s = singleton

=> <object>.singleton

=> <object>.singletonClass

obj.class
obj.class_singleton
obj.singleton_class

obj.exclusive_singleton_class

abstracted (not specifying a class):

obj.exclusive_behaviour_carrier

obj.ebc

-

obj.exclusive_class
obj.exclass

..

 

[Ilias Lazaridis]

Hi,

In message "Re: [EVALUATION] - E03e - The Ruby Object Model (Summary)"

|> I feel sorry that you've misunderstood.
|
|If you really feel sorry, than you should possibly reply to my initial
|message and comment what i've worked-out within the last 2 weeks.

I don't think I could read through all of your post and reply _before_
feeling sorry.

Feeling sorry for 'you've missunderstood' is irrelevant.

I ask you for an apology, from an analyst to an analyst.

An apology for _defective_ core documentation.

-

I ask you to read _one_ message.

The initial message of this thread.

Please answer concisely and completely within the full context, thus
readers get the complete picture of this issue.

And I will add a word "vertical" before "arrow" for
the next check in, anyway.

matz.

This is not enouth.

As the _direct_ responsible for the defective "ri Class" documentation,
you should have the courtesy, courage and integrity to reply directly to
my initial message.

-

You owe this.

-

To the community.

To my persons reputation.

To your persons reputation.

An most of all: to the reputation of the name "Matsumoto" that you carry.

-

[REQUOTE][REQUOTE]

ruby source-code, file "object.c"

"
void
Init_Object()
{
VALUE metaclass;

rb_cObject = boot_defclass("Object", 0);
rb_cModule = boot_defclass("Module", rb_cObject);
rb_cClass = boot_defclass("Class", rb_cModule);

metaclass = rb_make_metaclass(rb_cObject, rb_cClass);
metaclass = rb_make_metaclass(rb_cModule, metaclass);
metaclass = rb_make_metaclass(rb_cClass, metaclass);
"

vs.

"In Ruby, the Class class is the class of all classes, no metaclass."

http://blade.nagaokaut.ac.jp/cgi-bin/scat.rb/ruby/ruby-talk/40537

..

 

[Ilias Lazaridis]

Austin Ziegler wrote:
"meta-classes" is completely false.

possibly you believe this one more:

http://blade.nagaokaut.ac.jp/cgi-bin/scat.rb/ruby/ruby-talk/40537
[snip]

I do not believe that this is just an implementation detail,
as it is exposed to the language for use.

what you believe is irrelevant.

reality counts.

and (especially for you) possibly this here:

http://www.ruby-talk.org/cgi-bin/scat.rb/ruby/ruby-talk/40548

Guys, Ilias does have a point.

I have 3 points.

marked as a) b) c) in the original message.

but at this point, nearly no one of this community has an intrest if I
have "a point".

Most know: I am right.

But the "weak puppet" species is incapable to admit a failure within
'their' language system.

This is the point where the "spiritual leaders" of the community intervene.

But it looks that they too don't have the courage to admit their failures.

Possibly this is the fault of the community, which treats the designers
sometimes like God.

-

Language Designers are humans, not God's.

If we insist on that metaclasses as we have now are just an accidental
implementation of the singleton feature -- and the authoritive one,
Matz seems to do so -- then we can conclude that they cannot be part of
the Ruby object model, where Ruby is an abstract entity, Ruby, as such,
the language.

So then I accept that he doesn't accept the "ri Class" diagram. Even if
that's correct if we understood Ruby as its realized by the canonical
implementation today.

However, if we decide to mean Ruby as the abstract language, then maybe
it just doesn't make sense to plea for a *class* diagram -- if we ditch
metaclasses, Ruby's OO ceases to be purely class based.

Ruby's OO is not purely class based.

"Everything is an Object" is invalid, too.

Cause if you have objects, accessible via an special notation, which can
be "changed in future version", then you have no OO.

It still makes
sense to ask for some kind of figure representing inheritance.

I don't know UML, is it capable of representing classless (or not fully
class based) OO?

To my understanding, classless is nothing special.

Just an Object which carries the (dynamic) Class Specification.

You can draw a box, with a stereotyp "classless" or "dynamic".

[a small research should provide the valid standard for this]

If not, then the answer to Ilias' question: "either mean Ruby as the
current implementation defines it, or don't ask for an UML diagram
'cause can't be made one."

The inconsistence starts within the ruby sources.

Concise Terminology is the starting point.

_Clean_ and _transparent_ OO the fundament.

_Respect_ to the analytic individuum the essence of all progress.

-

But it looks I cannot find all this within Ruby.

..

 

[Lyndon Samson]

You owe this.

His only obligation is his personal commitment to the language. He
could stop working on it tomorrow if he felt like it.

Technically he's providing his time and effort on a volunteer basis,
you wouln't complain to Mother Teresa if her rice was overcooked would
you?

You need to be a bit more diplomatic with your interactions, otherwise
you will ( have ) rub people the wrong way and hence not achieve your
goals.

 

[Jon A. Lambert]

Thanks for the heads up.

-1, it's bad form to splice a poster mid sentence and thereby quote them out
of context.

The corrected quote is:
"So unless you have a response to the content of my post on ruby-ML THEN
DONT SEND ME ANY MORE FREAKING EMAIL."

I, of course, do accept and respond to personal email regaring the "content"
of my posts in a polite and discrete way. Although maybe not in a timely
fashion.

*plonk*

+2, for using the time worn and international recognized sybolic for: a)
dealing with trolls, b) indicating no further discussion will be
forthcoming, and c) expressing one's frustraton and displeasure to the
group.

Of course being a ruby forum, maybe 'tis better updated and expressed as....

*nil*

Err, even better how about doing it with a nice friendly smile?

*nil*

 

[Jon A. Lambert]

But the "weak puppet" species is incapable to admit a failure within
'their' language system.

This is the point where the "spiritual leaders" of the community
intervene.
But it looks that they too don't have the courage to admit their
failures.
Possibly this is the fault of the community, which treats the
designers sometimes like God.

Language Designers are humans, not God's.

I too was attacked and savagely beaten by a language designer in my youth.
I kept it inside for many years and didn't even realize it until it was
brought out in hypnotherapy 7 years ago. Sadly by that time the language
designer was deceased and I could not confront her. Not that it would have
mattered much anyway, she being an Admiral and protected by the military
industrial complex. You are far luckier being able to confront the abusive
LD amost directly through the internet. I just wanted to let you know that
YOU ARE NOT ALONE. Thank you for bravely standing up and sharing. Maybe
others like us who have been abused by LD's can finally come out of hiding
and get the recognition and support we need. As for how I conquered my
codependent behavior and COBOL addiction... NO I didn't just replace it with
Ruby...don't be ridiculous. I found Jesus. Well Jesus and Ruby. That may
not work for you. But good luck. I'm pulling for you.

 

[Ilias Lazaridis]

Lyndon Samson wrote:
[...]

please let Mr. Matsumoto speak for himself in this issue.

..

 

[Yukihiro Matsumoto]

Hi,

In message "Re: [EVALUATION] - E03e - The Ruby Object Model (Summary)"

|ruby source-code, file "object.c"
|
|vs.
|
|"In Ruby, the Class class is the class of all classes, no metaclass."
|
|http://blade.nagaokaut.ac.jp/cgi-bin/scat.rb/ruby/ruby-talk/40537

The figure in "object.c" describes internal structure. Each object
can have its per-object hidden class-like object, which we call
singleton class. But you don't have to implement Ruby like that.
It's just for _my_ implementation.

On the other hand [ruby-talk:40537] describes the language model, or
specification, which does not necessarily have metaclass. Classes are
no different from other objects. They have singleton methods just
like other objects. We often call singleton methods of classes as
"class methods" by tradition inherited from other languages.

If someone come up with better Class description, I'd love to update
the document.

matz.

 

[Bill Atkins]

------=_Part_4014_23401737.1114155394445
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Disposition: inline

Guys, for real, let's ignore this guy.

Please.

No more responses, just let him be.

=20

My final questions are basicly:
* Can I expect an apology for this false documentation?

Apology? Read the ruby license again. Hint: you did not buy "ruby".

It's a matter of degnity. =20
dignity.
=20
Mr. Matsumoto knows what I am talking about.

My suggestion:

[...] (process)

.

=20
..
=20

--=20
Bill Atkins

------=_Part_4014_23401737.1114155394445--

 

[Ilias Lazaridis]

Apology? Read the ruby license again. Hint: you did not buy "ruby".

It's a matter of degnity.

Mr. Matsumoto knows what I am talking about.

My suggestion:

[...] (process)

..

 

[Nikolai Weibull]

Ilias Lazaridis, April 22:

Feeling sorry for 'you've missunderstood' is irrelevant.

I ask you for an apology, from an analyst to an analyst.

An apology for _defective_ core documentation.

Man, it's time for you to realize when to SHUT THE **** UP!

We will not have you bashing people who provide you with free
programming languages with free documentation, whether the documentation
or the programming language agrees with you or not, so SHUT THE **** UP!

You have made your point. We all know that you think the documenation
for Class is wrong. We all know this. It's been painfully iterated by
you over several threads these past few weeks. Many smart and helpful
people have tried to explain, in great detail, precisely what is wrong
with your understanding of the issue, so as to make it possible for you
to move on beyond "ri Class" in your "evaluation". You haven't. Now
it's time for you to SHUT THE **** UP!

Please realize that you will not get an apology. You are the one who
should issue an apology for wasting people's time with your badly
thought through, badly written, and badly mannered postings. And when
you have, it's time for you to SHUT THE **** UP!

Everyone knows you are a deterrent. To most, this means that they'll
simply ignore anything that relates to you on this list. Still, some
people on this list are so nice that they continue to communicate with
you, even though they've been burned in the past. Don't you dare be
rude to those individuals. Instead, do dare to SHUT THE **** UP!

I'm sure that the people you are attacking in your threads can defend
themselves and don't need me to do their fighting for them. I'm also
sure that any time they waste on you is time that they won't have to
help other people on this list. There are lots of people on this list
with real problems and we won't let your juvenile behavior detract from
their available help any more, so SHUT THE **** UP!

In conclusion, Ilias, you really need to SHUT THE **** UP!,
nikolai

 

[Ilias Lazaridis]

Apology? Read the ruby license again. Hint: you did not buy "ruby".

It's a matter of degnity.
dignity.

Mr. Matsumoto knows what I am talking about.

My suggestion:

[...] (process)

.

..

 

[Ilias Lazaridis]

Yukihiro Matsumoto wrote:
[...] - (selective answering, with incoherent quotes)

Your answering behaviour is ungentle.

Against me and against readers (current and future archive readers).

I cannot believe that you simply ignore the essential part of my message.

I've recreated the message which you have essentialy ignored:

-
-
-

I don't think I could read through all of your post and reply
_before_ feeling sorry.

Feeling sorry for 'you've missunderstood' is irrelevant.

I ask you for an apology, from an analyst to an analyst.

An apology for _defective_ core documentation.

-

I ask you to read _one_ message.

The initial message of this thread.

Please answer concisely and completely within the full context, thus
readers get the complete picture of this issue.

And I will add a word "vertical" before "arrow" for the next check
in, anyway.

matz.

This is not enouth.

As the _direct_ responsible for the defective "ri Class" documentation,
you should have the courtesy, courage and integrity to reply directly to
my initial message.

-

You owe this.

-

To the community.

To my persons reputation.

To your persons reputation.

An most of all: to the reputation of the name "Matsumoto" that you carry.

-

[REQUOTE]

[REQUOTE]

ruby source-code, file "object.c"

"
void
Init_Object()
{
VALUE metaclass;

rb_cObject = boot_defclass("Object", 0);
rb_cModule = boot_defclass("Module", rb_cObject);
rb_cClass = boot_defclass("Class", rb_cModule);

metaclass = rb_make_metaclass(rb_cObject, rb_cClass);
metaclass = rb_make_metaclass(rb_cModule, metaclass);
metaclass = rb_make_metaclass(rb_cClass, metaclass);
"

vs.

"In Ruby, the Class class is the class of all classes, no metaclass."

http://blade.nagaokaut.ac.jp/cgi-bin/scat.rb/ruby/ruby-talk/40537

..

 

[Ilias Lazaridis]

I too was attacked and savagely beaten by a language designer in my
youth. I kept it inside for many years and didn't even realize it until
it was brought out in hypnotherapy 7 years ago. Sadly by that time the
language designer was deceased and I could not confront her. Not that
it would have mattered much anyway, she being an Admiral and protected
by the military industrial complex. You are far luckier being able to
confront the abusive LD amost directly through the internet. I just
wanted to let you know that YOU ARE NOT ALONE. Thank you for bravely
standing up and sharing. Maybe others like us who have been abused by
LD's can finally come out of hiding and get the recognition and support
we need. As for how I conquered my codependent behavior and COBOL
addiction... NO I didn't just replace it with Ruby...don't be
ridiculous. I found Jesus. Well Jesus and Ruby. That may not work for
you. But good luck. I'm pulling for you.

thank's a lot.

..

 

[Lyndon Samson]

Lyndon Samson wrote:
[...]

please let Mr. Matsumoto speak for himself in this issue.

Ok but are you not a little curious as to why you seem to be
antagonising so many people? Even if you are 'in the right', wouldn't
life be better if you could get your answers without annoying people?

Surely some reflection is called for. An open mind is essential for
progress in life.

 

[Jon A. Lambert]

Yukihiro Matsumoto wrote:
[...] - (selective answering, with incoherent quotes)

Your answering behaviour is ungentle.

Against me and against readers (current and future archive readers).

No you are really on the wrong track. After some research, and at great
personal risk I might add, I managed to obtain a photo of the responsible
parties in action.

/\_/\
| ..|
| `> ChunkyBacon!
| O | / /\/\
| | |..|
| | Chunky <' |
| | Bacon! |0 |

=begin
Class Documentation - A class is much like chunky bacon more than
an Object. Sort of like meta-chunky bacon, and by meta I mean the
peppered kind, not Canadian bacon (which we all know is really just
ham). And besides it's not really chunky at all.
=end

 

[Dick Davies]

[EVALUATION] - E03d - The Ruby Object Model (End Game)
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/comp.lang.ruby/msg/ea9da543dc256b42

My final questions are basicly:

* Can I expect an apology for this false documentation?

The heck, no. Can we expect an apologoy from you for being such an asshole?

No, because he's a troll. ffs guys, three or four times now he's said 'my
evaluation is over' and people have chipped in with 'one more thing'.

Let it die.

 

[Aleksi]

I believe in co-existence. I don't think people should be silenced to
death unless they're really just creating disorder. Lazaridis might be
borderline case but it's hard to deny there's no point in his real
question about classes, superclasses, metaclasses, Class etc. It's very
easy to say he's not behaving nice in accusations, netiquette and so on.

I dislike Ilias' but I dislike equally as much people who act improperly
or are rude for Mr. Lazaridis. Neither party are getting things better.

My advice is this.

1) Think three times (before you write, after you've written your reply
and once more before you send it after half an hour break) before you
write anything to these threads.

2) Determine if you're contributing to the mailing list signal/noise
-ratio in positive way. If not, don't send. If you need to make yourself
feel better by being rude verbally write the piece, send it to /dev/null
and feel better. Don't waste bandwidth.

First point should lessen the traffic to a small portion. Second point
should lead to either silence or to normal appreciating discussion, all
minds fresh and happy.

If majority finds there's nothing to discuss with Lazaridis he will end
up in silence and, from experience in other news groups, go away. If
even few people want to discuss with him, there's no right for the
others disrupt or they're behaving just like they claim Lazaridis'
doing. So they should go away.

I'll write one more in this thread. That's directly to Ilias written in
his style but since he has claimed he's not reading his personal mail
I'll put it to the list. In it I try to say to him what's wrong in his
writings. To make it worthwhile for the rest the mail could be amusing
as ewll. Can't say if I succeeded but at least I tried.

This is major turning point. Shall major ruby mailing list continue to
be friendly to each other (and everybody) or shall we start to convert
towards common cyberspace style.

- Aleksi

 

[Aleksi]

[...] - (selective answering, with incoherent quotes)

Your answering behaviour is ungentle.

your behaviour is not polite. please stick to the point and let the
behaviour issues stay away.

I cannot believe that you simply ignore the essential part of my message.

your message can't be understood since it is too long. please be concise
and say what's your essential question. everything else is rude.

believing is irrelevant. what you believe is completely irrelevant.
reality matters.

-

what's real matters.

you are make yourself irrelevant by believing, and not focusing only at
essentials.

Feeling sorry for 'you've missunderstood' is irrelevant.

feeling irrelevancy for feeling sorry of misunderstandings irrelevancy
is irrelevant. please be concise and bring front the question.

I ask you for an apology, from an analyst to an analyst.
An apology for _defective_ core documentation.

there's no documentation. there can't be core documentation. there can't
be defect in core documentation. analyst doesn't see he's diverting again.

asking for an apology for is ignoring the essential part of your
message. i cannot believe that you simply ignore the essential part of
your message.

-

aa == from Analyst to Analyst

documentation == text aa

a could be you

just be concise and complete to convey the message in the middst of
these letters.

I ask you to read _one_ message.

I ask you to write _one_ message.

-

no more

The initial message of this thread.

only the initial message of this thread. your messages after that have
been competely non-concise while simultaneously lacking the full context
thus no one gets the complete picture of this nonissue.

I would like to know who is responsible for this text.

you can't afford asking irrelevant questions while the nonissue is still
unanswered. by working against your own terms the responsible of the
reputation of the name "Lazaridis" makes his duty for the reputation.

..