News for hackers. Stuff that matters.

A comment on Why I Don't Like Golang (2016). Parent comment

Re:Why I Don't Like Golang (2016) by ben-schaaf on Wednesday June 12, 2019 @07:03PM (#20170254)
Ruby actually went one step beyond: there are no attributes. `attr_reader` just generates a 0-arg method, while `attr_writer` just generates a 1 argument `name=` method.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Why I Don't Like Golang (2016) by masklinn on Thursday June 13, 2019 @02:09AM (#20172220)
TBF that's pretty directly inherited from the Smalltalk ancestry: just like Smalltalk, Ruby simply doesn't have public (data) fields. Although it does provide shortcuts for automatically generating accessors which I don't think Smalltalk did / does.

Funnily enough, Self opted for the opposite tack of not having private data fields (although it does have readonly and read/write slots), but you can trivially swap "data" slots and "method" slots: http://handbook.selflanguage.org/2017.1/langref.html#constru...

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Why I Don't Like Golang (2016) by scroot on Thursday June 13, 2019 @08:24AM (#20174052)
> Although it does provide shortcuts for automatically generating accessors which I don't think Smalltalk did / does.

Most Smalltalk browsers do actually offer this capability

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Why I Don't Like Golang (2016) by masklinn on Thursday June 13, 2019 @11:31AM (#20175803)
The tooling does provide that yes, as it does in e.g. Java. But Ruby does it without tooling, the feature is a runtime message to the class object.
[ Parent | on HN ]