I don't think that having the class be an object makes runtime extensibility possible; it just happens to make it easier. :)
I used to think .NET's view of objects with metadata was awesome, coming from the C++ world, but it pales in comparison to truly dynamic environments. The kinds of things that are enabled by the environment are very powerful. It's no surprise that C# 3 has taken a lot of cues from dynamic languages, but in my mind they're still poor replacements for the real thing. On 5/25/07, Pardee, Roy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
For extra credit, explain whether and how having classes as objects enables ruby's "open class" functionality--that is, the ability to modify a class' definition at runtime. ;-)
=================================== This list is hosted by DevelopMentor� http://www.develop.com View archives and manage your subscription(s) at http://discuss.develop.com
