On 5/25/07, Mirza Kanlic <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Ruby is certainly not the first
ack Brad, and wont ask which one really is most powerful, naturally :-)
Ruby is the hippy love child of Smalltalk and Algol. Gotta love it. :)
--
http://www.agileprogrammer.com/dotnetguy/
http://www.flickr.c
I would rather have pointed to Smalltalk, and 40+ years ago...
Off topic, apart from it contributing on message-based goodness, the problem
is Web was not scaled from early demos, or anywhere to be seen at that time.
Neither did it have an OO idea baked into it, in fact JS made it harder to
writ
Mea culpa.
--
-Christopher
| AspInsider
http://chrisfrazier.net/blog
(\__/)
(='.'=) This is Bunny. Copy and paste bunny into your
(")_(") signature to help him gain world domination.
-Original Message-
From: Discussion of advanced .NET topics. [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf
Of Fer
On 5/25/07, Mirza Kanlic <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Probably nothing JavaScript could not do as fast and almost 15 years ago.
Ruby is certainly not the first (or even most powerful) dynamic
language, but neither is Javascript. ;) And they're roughly the same
age, given that Matz started working
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 t
I think you missed the point I was trying to make. What you show is just
calling an operator which will create an instance of the class and call it's
constructor, which is not the same thing.
Regards,
Fernando Tubio
- Original Message -
From: "Christopher Frazier" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To
Christopher Frazier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Object obj = new Foo();
>
> That will.
That's something different though, so it proves nothing.
-- Barry
--
http://barrkel.blogspot.com/
===
This list is hosted by DevelopMentor® http://www.develop.com
View ar
Object obj = new Foo();
That will.
--
-Christopher
| AspInsider
http://chrisfrazier.net/blog
(\__/)
(='.'=) This is Bunny. Copy and paste bunny into your
(")_(") signature to help him gain world domination.
-Original Message-
From: Discussion of advanced .NET topics. [mailto:[EMAIL PROT
Mirza Kanlic <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >ruby's "open class" functionality--that is, the ability to
> >modify a class' definition at runtime. ;-)
>
> Probably nothing JavaScript could not do as fast and almost 15 years ago.
I would rather have pointed to Smalltalk, and 40+ years ago...
> Prot
ruby's "open class" functionality--that is, the ability to
modify a class' definition at runtime. ;-)
Probably nothing JavaScript could not do as fast and almost 15 years ago.
Prototype and http://twologic.com/projects/inheritance/ example all of which
should provide ground for various benchmar
Sent via BlackBerry from Cingular Wireless
-Original Message-
From: "Pardee, Roy" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Fri, 25 May 2007 14:21:37
To:ADVANCED-DOTNET@DISCUSS.DEVELOP.COM
Subject: Re: [ADVANCED-DOTNET] Classes as objects
Ah--yes! This scratches an itch for me--thank
For example, if you want to call the static method "Foo" on the class
"Bar", in .NET, you have two choices:
1. Foo.Bar()
2. typeof(Foo).GetMethod("Bar", ...).Invoke()
What if you wanted to treat "Foo" in a way that you only cared about
having "a class which has the static method Bar() on it" wit
You already have an instance, and all arguments focusing on interfaces
requiring a class instance is scary, but no surprise considering there is
so much love for OO and GAMMA rays. Why an interface would require a class
instance sounds like another version of WCF needs to be written.
In CLI a stat
Another short answer: classes aren't objects in .NET.
*Everything* is an object in .NET.
But classes aren't, otherwise the following would compile.
class Foo
{
}
object obj = Foo;
Regards,
Fernando Tubio
===
This list is hosted by DevelopMentor� http://ww
Ah--yes! This scratches an itch for me--thanks!
So in ruby, static methods are functionally equivalent to instance
methods defined on the Class itself (that is, the class' Class).
For extra credit, explain whether and how having classes as objects
enables ruby's "open class" functionality--that
On 5/25/07, Christopher Frazier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Another short answer: classes aren't objects in .NET.
*Everything* is an object in .NET.
That's not true.
In .NET, a class is not an object. You can do typeof(), but what you
get back is a metadata structure which is not the class i
Sure sure--I get that. I guess the thing I'm fuzzy on is the concept of
the *metaclass* (in the smalltalk (and ruby?)) sense. That's the
direction I was hoping the discussion would go in.
But that may have nothing to do w/the OP's question, or the response
that prompted this little spur thread
"Pardee, Roy" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> But it doesn't necessarily follow from that that a class is an object,
> does it?
Types aren't values in .NET, so types are not objects, like they are in
(say) Smalltalk, and nor are they values in a higher-level class, like
they are in Delphi ("TClass =
On 5/25/07, Pardee, Roy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
But it doesn't necessarily follow from that that a class is an object,
does it?
Not that I mean to argue that .net classes *aren't* objects, mind you--I
think probably they are, and the Type class is the class Class. But I'm
looking forward to
But it doesn't necessarily follow from that that a class is an object,
does it?
Not that I mean to argue that .net classes *aren't* objects, mind you--I
think probably they are, and the Type class is the class Class. But I'm
looking forward to further discussion, as I know there are some nuances
Agreed.
On 5/25/07, Adwait Ullal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Regardless of .Net or otherwise, isn't it OO 101 that: an object is an
instantiation of the class ?
- Adwait
--
Adwait Ullal
e: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
w: http://www.adwait.com
l: http://www.linkedin.com/in/adwait
j: http://finance
Regardless of .Net or otherwise, isn't it OO 101 that: an object is an
instantiation of the class ?
- Adwait
--
Adwait Ullal
e: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
w: http://www.adwait.com
l: http://www.linkedin.com/in/adwait
j: http://finance.groups.yahoo.com/group/AdwaitsDotNetJobs
On 5/25/07, Christop
> Another short answer: classes aren't objects in .NET.
*Everything* is an object in .NET.
--
-Christopher
| AspInsider
http://chrisfrazier.net/blog
(\__/)
(='.'=) This is Bunny. Copy and paste bunny into your
(")_(") signature to help him gain world domination.
-Original Message-
From
Yes, it's a bit cumbersome, the relationship between static and
interface. Interfaces are intended to define an object contract for
polymorphism. You can't pass an object around to be cast to different
interface references if you can't instantiate the class. So, statics and
interfaces are not su
Short answer: interfaces require instances.
Another short answer: classes aren't objects in .NET.
On 5/24/07, Erik M. Erikson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
The question: Why was it decided that static classes cannot implement
interfaces?
--
http://www.agileprogrammer.com/dotnetguy/
http://www.fli
25 matches
Mail list logo
