Subclassing Class.

[gwtmp01]

This is different. First of all, Ruby is a work by Matz, not any
of us.

With all due respect to Matz, I think Ruby is now much more than the
work of a single person. Without a doubt, the community continues to
benefit from his leadership and there is no reason to think that that
won't continue but let's not pass over all the other contributors.

Gary Wright

 

[Wayne Vucenic]

Hi David,

I just wanted to chime in that I totally agree with your position
regarding "singleton class" vs. other names for this concept.

"Ruby for Rails", forthcoming from Manning Publications, April 2006!

The draft I read really rocks. I'm looking forward to the final book!

Wayne

 

[David A. Black]

Hi --

With all due respect to Matz, I think Ruby is now much more than the
work of a single person. Without a doubt, the community continues to
benefit from his leadership and there is no reason to think that that
won't continue but let's not pass over all the other contributors.

Let's not pass over the sentence right after the one you quoted either


David
__
David A. Black
(e-mail address removed)

"Ruby for Rails", forthcoming from Manning Publications, April 2006!

 

[gwtmp01]

Let's not pass over the sentence right after the one you quoted
either

For the record, that next sentence was:

But, granting that single authorship is not really the whole story
here,

Yeah, I should have acknowledged that in my response, but I didn't
catch it
until after responding. I still would have responded, but perhaps more
obliquely.

I think I missed 'part2' in first reading because of such a direct,
unambiguous statement just before it. I just don't know what to make of:
"Ruby is a work by Matz, not any of us" in the midst of a discussion of
language semantics. That sounded too much like "proof by authority" for
my liking nor is that what I see going on in the Ruby community.

Now we are getting off topic. Sorry for confusing your meaning.

 

[David A. Black]

Hi --

For the record, that next sentence was:

Yeah, I should have acknowledged that in my response, but I didn't
catch it
until after responding. I still would have responded, but perhaps more
obliquely.

I think I missed 'part2' in first reading because of such a direct,
unambiguous statement just before it. I just don't know what to make of:
"Ruby is a work by Matz, not any of us" in the midst of a discussion of
language semantics. That sounded too much like "proof by authority" for
my liking nor is that what I see going on in the Ruby community.

Matz is, by his account, a "benevolent dictator" It's a great
community, but in terms of the technical side of Ruby (as opposed to what
someone may want to do with a website design, or something) it's not a
democracy.

It works out very well, though.


David
__
David A. Black
(e-mail address removed)

"Ruby for Rails", forthcoming from Manning Publications, April 2006!

 

[David A. Black]

I think I missed 'part2' in first reading because of such a direct,

unambiguous statement just before it. I just don't know what to make of:
"Ruby is a work by Matz, not any of us" in the midst of a discussion of
language semantics. That sounded too much like "proof by authority" for
my liking nor is that what I see going on in the Ruby community.

Just to clarify that sentence you didn't understand: it was in response to
your point about academic works and their authors coming up with new
terms. My point was that if there's an analogy there, it's between the
academic authors and Matz, not between an author and every single person
who uses Ruby. (And that's the point at which I tempered it by saying the
analogy isn't exact, etc....


David
__
David A. Black
(e-mail address removed)

"Ruby for Rails", forthcoming from Manning Publications, April 2006!