RE: Standard Lua Library

[Jay Carlson <nop@...>]

Squeak has spent years trying to modularize after decades of designing this way, though.  Stuff like GUI toolkit methods on Object are imposing to the new user.

This is not inevitable but it is a cautionary tale.

-- 
Jay
Sent from a Treo, excuse infelicities

-----Original Message-----
From: "Rici Lake" <lua@ricilake.net>
To: "Lua list" <lua@bazar2.conectiva.com.br>
Sent: 1/12/07 7:32 AM
Subject: Re: Standard Lua Library


On 12-Jan-07, at 10:23 AM, James Hearn wrote:

>> Can you give any examples of other programming languages that does
>> something similar? inject functions into other namespaces?
>
> In Ruby all classes and modules are "open" meaning that other classes
> are free to inject, patch, or otherwise modify their class
> definitions. As a particular example Ruby on Rails adds functionality
> to core classes like strings and numbers (!) It's definitely a
> different approach than the standard in most other languages, but the
> Ruby camp considers it a strength rather than a drawback.

This is also considered a strength of Smalltalk / Squeak and 
Objective-C, as I understand it.