On 25 June 2013 14:00, Esteban Lorenzano <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Jun 25, 2013, at 1:36 PM, Igor Stasenko <[email protected]> wrote: > >> On 25 June 2013 13:29, Esteban Lorenzano <[email protected]> wrote: >>> I really cannot believe that you can consider >>> >>> is: #string >>> >>> better programing than >>> >>> isString >>> >>> no matter the implementation, and no matter if you can still found senders >>> of #string... string programming (or symbol programing) is just bad, bad, >>> bad. >>> Is so bad that is axiomatic... I cannot even explain why... :) >>> >> >> you are highly subjective here. :) >> >> given two expressions: >> >> object isString >> and >> object is: #string >> >> to me they are equal in their beautiness or ugliness, if you like. > > with the difference that in one: > > 1) you has a clearer and more expressive message > 2) you have a simple message send with an immediate return (and not a > comparisson) > > and in the other... you don't. >
But that's exactly the point: if you so bad, that end up using isXXXX pattern in your code, you have to pay extra price for it! See, you don't like it! This is intentional! So, you should think how to avoid using it, and be forced to write better code :) Consider #is:, like anti-method for anti-pattern.. but not as "a very useful method". Then everything will fit on its place in your mind! :) > but well, I already explained my opinion... and I think we are not going to > agree. > So I rest, I'm over of this :) > -- Best regards, Igor Stasenko.
