In the answer to this SO question Jörg W Mittag says:
There is no such thing as a constructor in Ruby.
I didn't think much of that, until I read the Wikipedia article on constructors, which states:
Immutable objects must be initialized in a constructor.
Since symbols are immutable in Ruby, how are they made? Wikipedia would seem to think they must be made with a constructor, yet Jörg says there are no constructors in Ruby.
I'm fairly new to OOP concepts and programming in general, so it possible I am missing something fairly basic, but from my perspective it there is a contradiction between these sources.
When people say
There is no such thing as a constructor in Ruby.
they mean that there is no special method type corresponding to a constructor, the way there is in C++ and Java.
In Ruby, the initialize method is, by convention, used to initialize a new object. However, it is not a special method -- it's a method just like any other method in Ruby.
Symbols are 'initialized' in some dark inside part of the ruby runtime, that you don't need to worry about.
If you make your own immutable class in ruby, it would have to be initialized in it's "constructor", which in ruby means in it's #initialize method. The initialize method may or may not technically be a constructor, but it's the method that is called when the object is instantiated, which is the point the wikipedia article is making -- since an immutable object can't be changed once created, any state has to be set when it's created, not later.
Wikipedia article calls this 'a constructor', but different languages use different terminology or exact constructs, the wikipedia article wasn't written with ruby in mind. For ruby, "place you can set state on object instantiation" is typically initialize method. (I say 'typically', because you can do all kinds of crazy things in ruby if you try). The wikipedia article is still right that if an object is truly immutable, any setting of state happens to happen on object creation, not afterwords -- that's just the meaning of 'immutable', right?
That's for immutable classes implemented by ruby source code. But good luck finding an 'initialize' method for symbols. They don't work that way. They are just provided by ruby itself, by the runtime, and we don't need to worry about the details.
Related
The following code is valid:
(1..5).to_a
(1..5) is a Range. The method to_a appears to convert a range to an array.
However, the documentation for Range does not document. Since this documentation is presumably auto-generated from the source with Yard, I doubt it could not be in the list of methods. Is there auto conversion going on?
How is the above legal Ruby?
The following code is valid ruby:
b = (1..5).to_a
(1..5) is a Range object, and b is an Array object. The official(?) documentation for the Class Range does not document the method to_a, which appears to convert a range to an array.
So, how is the above legal Ruby?
Ruby has something called "inheritance". Inheritance is a method for differential code-reuse that actually does not only exist in Ruby, but is in fact quite popular in many languages such as Java, C♯, C++, Python, PHP, Scala, Kotlin, Ceylon, and so on and so forth.
Inheritance allows you to define methods in one place, and then inherit them in another place, overriding and defining only the methods whose behavior differs. Hence, "differential code re-use".
In this particular case, the method you are looking at is Enumerable#to_a.
Note: Ruby actually has two forms of inheritance, mixin inheritance and class inheritance. Mixin inheritance is like class inheritance where the mixin doesn't know its superclass. (The definitive resource about mixin inheritance is Gilad Bracha's PhD Thesis The Programming Language Jigsaw – Mixins, Modularity, and Multiple Inheritance.)
The official(?) documentation
Actually, ruby-doc is a third-party site. There is no official documentation site. (However, the documentation on ruby-doc is generated from documentation comments in YARV, one of the major Ruby implementations, and one that Yukihiro Matsumoto actively contributes to.)
Since this documentation is presumably autogenerated from the source with Yard,
It is actually autogenerated from the YARV source with RDoc, not YARD.
I'm confused how it could not be in the list of methods,
Note that the explanation I gave is the correct one, but there could be many other explanations. The most simple one: the reason why the method is not in the documentation is that it is not documented. Another reason could be a bug in the documentation generator that prevents the documentation for that method being displayed, a typo in the source code that prevents the documentation generator from recognizing the documentation, and many, many others.
so is there auto conversion going on?
No. Ruby does not have automatic conversions in the language. There are some methods which for reasons of efficiency are implemented in a non-object-oriented manner, and require an object to be an instance of a specific class (as opposed to the object-oriented manner, which would only require the object to conform to a specific protocol). Because it is a severe restriction to require an object to be an instance of a specific class, those methods will usually offer an "escape hatch" to the programmer, by sending a specific message and allowing the object to respond with an object of the required class.
For example, all methods printing something to the console, require an instance of String, but they will try sending to_s first, before rejecting the argument.
These are sometimes called "implicit conversions", but they have nothing to do with implicit conversions as in Scala or implicit casts as in C♯. They are in fact not even part of the language, they are just a convention for library writers.
Context: i argue that saying pass_by_reference when it's really pass_by_sharing is misleading
Here is the excerpt from the book "Effective Ruby" I'm arguing against
"Most objects are passed around as references and not as actual values. When these types of objects are inserted into a container the collection class is actually storing a reference to the object and not the object itself. (The notable exception to the rule is the Fixnum class whose objects are always passed by value and not by reference.)
The same is true when objects are passed as method arguments. The method will receive a reference to the object and not a new copy. This is great for efficiency but has a startling implication.
"
The 'call by value' and 'call by object sharing' terminology matches Ruby's behavior, and
the terminology is consistent with other object orientated languages that have the same
semantics.
'Call by value' and 'call by object sharing' basically mean the same thing in object orientated languages, so which one is used doesn't really matter. Someone just thought it would clarify the confusion in the terminology to add more terminology.
If 'call by reference' was implemented in Ruby though, it would be something like:
def f(byref x)
x = "CHANGED"
end
x = ""
f(x)
# X is "CHANGED"
Here, the value of x is changed. The value being which object x refers to.
Using terms 'call by reference' just creates confusion though because they mean
different things to different people. It's unnecessary in
languages like Ruby because you don't have a choice. In languages with different
calling mechanisms like C++ and C# it makes more sense to teach these terms because
they have a real effect on programs and we can come up with non hypothetical examples
of them.
When explaining parameters in Ruby, you don't need to use any of these terms though.
They're meaningless to people that don't already know the language. Just
describe the behavior itself without that terminology and avoid the baggage.
I would say if you insist on using these terms, then use 'call by value' because it's usually considered more correct. The 'Programming Ruby' book calls it 'call by value', as well as plenty of Ruby programmers. Using the term with a different meaning than its technical one isn't helpful.
You are right. Ruby is pass-by-value only. The semantics of passing and assigning in Ruby are exactly identical to those in Java. And Java is universally described (on Stack Overflow and the rest of the Internet) as pass-by-value only. Terms about languages such as pass-by-value and pass-by-reference must be consistently used across languages to be meaningful.
The thing that is often misunderstood by people who say Java, Ruby, etc. "pass objects by reference" is that "objects" are not values in these languages, and thus cannot be "passed". The value of every variable and result of every expression is a "reference", which is a pointer to an object. The expression for creating an object returns an object pointer; when you access an attribute through the dot notation, the left side takes an object pointer; when you assign one variable to another, you copy the pointer resulting in two pointers to the same object. You always deal with pointers to objects, never objects themselves.
This is made explicit in Java as the only types in Java are primitive types and reference types -- there are no "object types". So every value in Java that is not a primitive is a reference (a pointer to an object). Ruby is dynamically-typed, so variables don't have explicit types. But you can imagine a dynamically-typed language as just a statically-typed language having exactly one type; and for languages like Python and Ruby, if this type were described, it be a pointer-to-object type.
The issue ultimately boils down to a problem of definitions. People argue over things because there is no precise definition, or they each have slightly different definitions. Rather then argue over vaguely-defined things like what is the "value" of a variable, or whether named values are "variables" or "names", etc., we need to use a definition for pass-by-value and pass-by-reference that is based purely on semantics of a language structure. #fgb's answer provides a clear semantic test for pass-by-reference. In "true pass-by-reference", e.g. with & in C++ and PHP, or with ref or out in C#, simple assignment (i.e. =) to a parameter variable has the same effect as simple assignment to the passed variable in the original scope. In pass-by-value, simple assignment (i.e. =) to a parameter variable has no effect in the original scope. This is what we see in Java, Python, Ruby, and many other languages.
I dislike people coming up with new names like "pass by object sharing", when they don't understand that the semantics are covered by an existing term, pass-by-value. Adding a new term only adds more to the confusion rather than reduce it, because it does not resolve the definitions of existing terms, only adding a new term that also needs to be defined.
I am learning Ruby and I'm having a major conceptual problem concerning typing. Allow me to detail why I don't understand with paradigm.
Say I am method chaining for concise code as you do in Ruby. I have to precisely know what the return type of each method call in the chain, otherwise I can't know what methods are available on the next link. Do I have to check the method documentation every time?? I'm running into this constantly running tutorial exercises. It seems I'm stuck with a process of reference, infer, run, fail, fix, repeat to get code running rather then knowing precisely what I'm working with during coding. This flies in the face of Ruby's promise of intuitiveness.
Say I am using a third party library, once again I need to know what types are allow to pass on the parameters otherwise I get a failure. I can look at the code but there may or may not be any comments or declaration of what type the method is expecting. I understand you code based on methods are available on an object, not the type. But then I have to be sure whatever I pass as a parameter has all the methods the library is expect, so I still have to do type checking. Do I have to hope and pray everything is documented properly on an interface so I know if I'm expected to give a string, a hash, a class, etc.
If I look at the source of a method I can get a list of methods being called and infer the type expected, but I have to perform analysis.
Ruby and duck typing: design by contract impossible?
The discussions in the preceding stackoverflow question don't really answer anything other than "there are processes you have to follow" and those processes don't seem to be standard, everyone has a different opinion on what process to follow, and the language has zero enforcement. Method Validation? Test-Driven Design? Documented API? Strict Method Naming Conventions? What's the standard and who dictates it? What do I follow? Would these guidelines solve this concern https://stackoverflow.com/questions/616037/ruby-coding-style-guidelines? Is there editors that help?
Conceptually I don't get the advantage either. You need to know what methods are needed for any method called, so regardless you are typing when you code anything. You just aren't informing the language or anyone else explicitly, unless you decide to document it. Then you are stuck doing all type checking at runtime instead of during coding. I've done PHP and Python programming and I don't understand it there either.
What am I missing or not understanding? Please help me understand this paradigm.
This is not a Ruby specific problem, it's the same for all dynamically typed languages.
Usually there are no guidelines for how to document this either (and most of the time not really possible). See for instance map in the ruby documentation
map { |item| block } → new_ary
map → Enumerator
What is item, block and new_ary here and how are they related? There's no way to tell unless you know the implementation or can infer it from the name of the function somehow. Specifying the type is also hard since new_ary depends on what block returns, which in turn depends on the type of item, which could be different for each element in the Array.
A lot of times you also stumble across documentation that says that an argument is of type Object, Which again tells you nothing since everything is an Object.
OCaml has a solution for this, it supports structural typing so a function that needs an object with a property foo that's a String will be inferred to be { foo : String } instead of a concrete type. But OCaml is still statically typed.
Worth noting is that this can be a problem in statically typed lanugages too. Scala has very generic methods on collections which leads to type signatures like ++[B >: A, That](that: GenTraversableOnce[B])(implicit bf: CanBuildFrom[Array[T], B, That]): That for appending two collections.
So most of the time, you will just have to learn this by heart in dynamically typed languages, and perhaps help improve the documentation of libraries you are using.
And this is why I prefer static typing ;)
Edit One thing that might make sense is to do what Scala also does. It doesn't actually show you that type signature for ++ by default, instead it shows ++[B](that: GenTraversableOnce[B]): Array[B] which is not as generic, but probably covers most of the use cases. So for Ruby's map it could have a monomorphic type signature like Array<a> -> (a -> b) -> Array<b>. It's only correct for the cases where the list only contains values of one type and the block only returns elements of one other type, but it's much easier to understand and gives a good overview of what the function does.
Yes, you seem to misunderstand the concept. It's not a replacement for static type checking. It's just different. For example, if you convert objects to json (for rendering them to client), you don't care about actual type of the object, as long as it has #to_json method. In Java, you'd have to create IJsonable interface. In ruby no overhead is needed.
As for knowing what to pass where and what returns what: memorize this or consult docs each time. We all do that.
Just another day, I've seen rails programmer with 6+ years of experience complain on twitter that he can't memorize order of parameters to alias_method: does new name go first or last?
This flies in the face of Ruby's promise of intuitiveness.
Not really. Maybe it's just badly written library. In core ruby everything is quite intuitive, I dare say.
Statically typed languages with their powerful IDEs have a small advantage here, because they can show you documentation right here, very quickly. This is still accessing documentation, though. Only quicker.
Consider that the design choices of strongly typed languages (C++,Java,C#,et al) enforce strict declarations of type passed to methods, and type returned by methods. This is because these languages were designed to validate that arguments are correct (and since these languages are compiled, this work can be done at compile time). But some questions can only be answered at run time, and C++ for example has the RTTI (Run Time Type Interpreter) to examine and enforce type guarantees. But as the developer, you are guided by syntax, semantics and the compiler to produce code that follows these type constraints.
Ruby gives you flexibility to take dynamic argument types, and return dynamic types. This freedom enables you to write more generic code (read Stepanov on the STL and generic programming), and gives you a rich set of introspection methods (is_a?, instance_of?, respond_to?, kind_of?, is_array?, et al) which you can use dynamically. Ruby enables you to write generic methods, but you can also explicity enforce design by contract, and process failure of contract by means chosen.
Yes, you will need to use care when chaining methods together, but learning Ruby is not just a few new keywords. Ruby supports multiple paradigms; you can write procedural, object oriend, generic, and functional programs. The cycle you are in right now will improve quickly as you learn about Ruby.
Perhaps your concern stems from a bias towards strongly typed languages (C++, Java, C#, et al). Duck typing is a different approach. You think differently. Duck typing means that if an object looks like a , behaves like a , then it is a . Everything (almost) is an Object in Ruby, so everything is polymorphic.
Consider templates (C++ has them, C# has them, Java is getting them, C has macros). You build an algorithm, and then have the compiler generate instances for your chosen types. You aren't doing design by contract with generics, but when you recognize their power, you write less code, and produce more.
Some of your other concerns,
third party libraries (gems) are not as hard to use as you fear
Documented API? See Rdoc and http://www.ruby-doc.org/
Rdoc documentation is (usually) provided for libraries
coding guidelines - look at the source for a couple of simple gems for starters
naming conventions - snake case and camel case are both popular
Suggestion - approach an online tutorial with an open mind, do the tutorial (http://rubymonk.com/learning/books/ is good), and you will have more focused questions.
In this comment, it was stated that Ruby doesn't have functions, only methods. If Ruby doesn't have functions, is it not possible to do functional programming in it? Or am I confused about the term "function"?
I mean "functional programming" in the sense of functions as first class objects, not as in prohibiting mutable state.
Blocks and Procs are first-class functions. You can pass them around to methods and functions. That's how Ruby is able to support FP-ish things like map and reduce.
More generally, a method can be viewed as a function with extra associated state (its self), but methods are rarely passed around in Ruby — though they can be — so in practice they're not as important to FP-ish idioms as blocks and Procs.
Yes. Method vs function is quite a fine distinction.
It's easy to view each particular method implementation as a function; just have it take as an extra parameter the object on which the method was invoked (if your language doesn't pass it explicitly; not terribly familiar with Ruby). That doesn't quite give you virtual method calls (i.e. where the particular implementation called is determined by the object at runtime). But it's also very easy to imagine a virtual method call as calling a function that just inspects its first parameter (self, this, whatever it's called) and uses it to determine which method implementation to call. With those conventions established, object.method(param1, param2) differs from method(object, param1, param2) only in a trivial syntactic way.
Personally, I view the above as "the truth", and that object-oriented languages just offer syntactic sugar and optimised execution for this because it's such a core part of writing/executing OO programs. That sort of system is also exactly how you do OO when you have functions but not true classes/methods.
It's also trivially easy to implement functions with methods, if you think methods aren't functions. Just have an object with a single method and no attributes! This is also how you do functional programming in languages like Java that insist upon everything being an object and don't let you pass methods/functions as first-class values.
All you need to do functional programming is things you can pass around as first-class values, which can be used to execute code determined by the creator of the "thing" (rather than determined by the code that's using the "thing"), on demand by code that has access to the "thing". I can't think of a programming language that doesn't have this capability.
A function (or more precisely a procedure, since we are not talking about referential transparency here) is isomorphic to an object with only a single method.
That's how first-class procedures are faked in Java, for example: with so-called SAM interfaces (Single Abstract Method). It's also how first-class procedures are "faked" in Ruby: anything which responds to call (and maybe to_proc) is a first-class procedure. There is a convenience class called Proc which provides additional features for "procedures" such as currying, and there is literal syntax (-> (x, y) { x + y }) for procedures which creates instances of the Proc class, but those two aren't strictly necessary:
def (i_am_a_first_class_procedure = Object.new).call(x) p x end
i_am_a_first_class_procedure.(42)
# 42
Scala is similar, except the method is called apply, not call. In Python, it's a "magic" method called __call__.
Note: I am ignoring closures here. Closures are procedures with state, and objects of course can have state, too, so there's not a real problem in representing them, but expressing the lexical capture of free variables in terms of an object with instance variables gets rather hairy.
Naturally yes, as long as the language is Turing complete.
Added later:
Actually, Ruby supports several cases of typical functional programming. Matz himself stated something about "providing toys for functional programming kids" when he wass adding #curry method to Proc class in Ruby 1.9 But you can do functional programming with methods as well.
Pardon my ignorance, but What is a Metaobject protocol, and does Ruby have one? If not, is it possible to implement one for Ruby? What features might a Metaobject protocol possess if Ruby was to have one?
What is a Metaobject protocol?
The best description I've come across is from the Class::MOP documentation:
A meta object protocol is an API to an object system.
To be more specific, it abstracts the components of an object system (classes, object, methods, object attributes, etc.). These abstractions can then be used to inspect and manipulate the object system which they describe.
It can be said that there are two MOPs for any object system; the implicit MOP and the explicit MOP. The implicit MOP handles things like method dispatch or inheritance, which happen automatically as part of how the object system works. The explicit MOP typically handles the introspection/reflection features of the object system.
All object systems have implicit MOPs. Without one, they would not work. Explicit MOPs are much less common, and depending on the language can vary from restrictive (Reflection in Java or C#) to wide open (CLOS is a perfect example).
Does Ruby have one?
According to this thread on Reopening builtin classes, redefining builtin functions? Perlmonks article I think the answer is no (at least in the strictest sense of what a MOP is).
Clearly there is some wriggle room here so it might be worth posting a question in the Perl side of SO because the Class::MOP / Moose author does answer questions there.
If you look closer to the definition, youll see that Ruby does have a MOP. Is it like the one in CLOS? No, CLOS is a meta-circular MOP which is great (I'd even say genius), but it's not the one true way, take a look at Smalltalk. To implement a (let's say basic) MOP all you need is to provide functions that allow your runtime to:
Create or delete a new class
Create a new property or method
Cause a class to inherit from a different class ("change the class structure")
Generate or change the code defining the methods of a class.
And Ruby provides a way to do all that.
On a side note: The author of Class::MOP is right (IMHO) when it claims that some of the things you can do with a meta circular MOP can be hard to do in Ruby (DISCLAIMER: I have zero, zilch, nada Perl knowledge, so I'm thinking Smalltalk like MOP vs CLOS like MOP here) but most of them are very specific (I'm thinking about metaclass instantation here) and there are ways to make things work without them. I think it all depends on your point view, meta circular MOPs are cooler but more on the academic side and non meta circular MOPs are more practical and easier to implement.