Comment by ck45

Comment by ck45 20 hours ago

6 replies

View on Hacker News

But then Ruby only goes half way, not unlike the "watered-down form" in your term. Why is `#times` a method of Integer, but `#if` (or `#ifTrue`) not a method of booleans like in Smalltalk? Ruby does the same cherry picking from Smalltalk like everybody else, just different cherries. When looking at Ruby, it feels like the simple examples are all nice and clean but then the weird details start to appear and the language feels more hacky than others (like Ned Flander's house in Simpsons S08E08).

chao- 20 hours ago

#if and #ifTrue are yours if you want them:

  class TrueClass
    def if = true
    def ifTrue = true
  end

  class FalseClass
    def if = false
    def ifTrue = false
  end

  true.if
  # => true
  false.if
  # => false
Reply View 4 replies
  • wild_egg 19 hours ago

    In Smalltalk those methods don't return `true`. They take a block and evaluate it if the boolean receiving the message

        (a > b) ifTrue: [ "do something" ]
    EDIT: to clarify what's happening there, `>` is a message sent to `a` that will result in a boolean. The True class and False class both understand the ifTrue: message and `True>>ifTrue:` executes the block whereas `False>>ifTrue:` just throws it away.

    There's no `if` keyword in the language. Control flow is done purely through polymorphism.

    Reply View 3 replies
    • chao- 19 hours ago

      I apologize for my lack of Smalltalk knowledge. As you can imagine, you can do similar in Ruby by defining ifTrue to accept a block, even adding ifTrue on other all objects and defining something similar:

        class TrueClass
    def ifTrue(&block) = block.call
  end

  class FalseClass
    def ifTrue(&block) = nil
  end

  class Object
    def ifTrue(&block) = block.call
  end
      
  class NilClass
    def ifTrue(&block) = nil
  end
      If ck45's core complaint was that this is not baked into the language, I will agree that it is less convenient for lack of a default.
      Reply View 0 replies
    • oezi 19 hours ago

      Certainly possible: add ifTrue as a method to TrueClass and FalseClass.

      It just isn't very fast.

      Reply View 1 reply
      • codesnik 17 hours ago

        problem is not with ifTrue, and not with it's performance, it's easy to do. it is "ifTrue:ifFalse:"

        also it is common to do assignments in the "if", and with actual method and blocks scope of the introduced variable would be different and everyone would be tripping on it all the time.

        Reply View 0 replies
codesnik 18 hours ago

basically it's because of "else" and "elsif". While ".each" works the same as "for .. in ...; end", it's harder to do "if else" as method which will also return value of the block inside the branch. Smalltalk can do it because "ifTrue:ifFalse:" is _one_ message, ruby didn't go that way syntactically.

Reply View 0 replies