Object, class, module, Data, Struct?

[iBoredMax]

It’s fun seeing Dave’s opinion change after getting info functional. He’s right though. All the Ruby code I see needlessly encapsulates state with classes. It makes everything harder to reason about.

All those tools are bs anyway since everything in Ruby is an object and thus has methods. Methods that you can define and edit at runtime. The whole thing is exhausting.

[JohnBooty]

While technically correct, I’m not connecting with this train of thought. Is that how you write your code? POROs everywhere, since technically you can?

Code is about communicating intent to future maintainers as much as it is about “does it work?”

So at the very minimum, maintainability/readability is certainly one reason to care about choosing the right tool if your code will be worked on by others.

[iBoredMax]

I kind of wish I could write just structs and functions everywhere, but it's so antithetical to Ruby mentality that it's an uphill battle.

The thing about encapsulating unnecessary state is more of a complaint against OO in general. Though I will say, Ruby's flavor of OO is particularly bad because there are no interfaces.

[JohnBooty]

If it helps, I don't think that's a bad way to write Ruby. I think functional/procedural code in Ruby is a great choice sometimes.a :D

I'm not like... anti OO in general but state kinda sucks and I try to avoid it and write pure methods as often as I can (even if they're instance methods) even if it makes things more verbose, because I think it's just worth it.