News for hackers. Stuff that matters.

A comment on The use of `class` for things that should be simple free functions. Parent comment

Re:The use of `class` for things that should be simple free ... by cgrealy on Thursday May 28, 2020 @04:29AM (#23334874)
Just put the function in a namespace?
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:The use of `class` for things that should be simple free ... by risorect on Thursday May 28, 2020 @04:47AM (#23334976)
In terms of ruby, we may be splitting hairs when it comes to namespaces vs classes. Modules, which are typically used for namespacing, can have state and extend themselves, making them effectively singleton classes.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:The use of `class` for things that should be simple free ... by ratww on Thursday May 28, 2020 @06:55AM (#23335851)
> Modules, which are typically used for namespacing, can have state

But there's nothing about state that makes it specific to classes. Namespaces in C++ can hold (static) state, for example. So it's actually the other way around: singleton classes can effectively be namespaces/modules.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:The use of `class` for things that should be simple free ... by cessor on Thursday May 28, 2020 @07:10AM (#23335936)
Object without state but with functions is just a namespace. But that depends on how the language implements it.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:The use of `class` for things that should be simple free ... by hamandcheese on Thursday May 28, 2020 @09:54PM (#23345492)
In Ruby that looks a lot like what the article says is an anti-pattern.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:The use of `class` for things that should be simple free ... by ClikeX on Thursday May 28, 2020 @04:47AM (#23334972)
In Ruby, that basically comes down to creating a static class.
[ Parent | on HN ]