On Fri, Nov 28, 2008 at 10:28 PM, Scott Taylor < [EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Nov 28, 2008, at 11:52 AM, David Chelimsky wrote: > > On Thu, Nov 27, 2008 at 8:17 PM, Mark Wilden <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >>> On Thu, Nov 27, 2008 at 5:57 PM, Brian Takita <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> >>>> I'm wondering if this is a discussion about taste. >>>> >>> >>> I think you're right. I've been using the 'def self.foo' style in various >>> languages for almost 20 years, so of course it feels more natural to me. >>> These languages (except for Smalltalk) had nowhere near the >>> metaprogramming >>> capability nor 'objects all the way down'-ness of Ruby, and 'class << >>> self' >>> is one of those things. >>> >>> ///ark >>> >> >> FWIW, the blog that led to this discussion suggested a performance >> impact as well. As RSpec has gotten dinged for being slower than >> alternatives, that interested me, so I did a little experiment def'ing >> methods 10k times with def self.method and class << self; def method >> .... >> >> > I'd be curious to see those benchmarks. > > Also - re: performance: I've always wondered why RSpec (and other ruby > projects, for that matter) aren't using Kernel#autoload instead of > Kernel#require. If we used autoload, we wouldn't have to load the code > for, say, a matcher which is never used in a project. > I didn't even know about that method. I don't think I've ever seen it used. I'll definitely try it out. Cheers, Aslak > > Scott > > _______________________________________________ > rspec-users mailing list > rspec-users@rubyforge.org > http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users >
_______________________________________________ rspec-users mailing list rspec-users@rubyforge.org http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users
