On 2013-06-25, at 14:35, Igor Stasenko <siguc...@gmail.com> wrote: > On 25 June 2013 14:00, Esteban Lorenzano <esteba...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> On Jun 25, 2013, at 1:36 PM, Igor Stasenko <siguc...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> On 25 June 2013 13:29, Esteban Lorenzano <esteba...@gmail.com> 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! :)
so that's why you install so many NativeBoost methods on Object?? invest your motivation into athens and txtext that is way more productive...
