1. 5
  1.  

  2. 2

    Why would you use a ThingDoer rather than a closure?

    1. 1

      serialization is about the only real answer

      1. 1

        In Ruby people like to make things objects so you can do all the cute Ruby magic stuff like mixins for sharing code. Many Ruby programmers treat a method/function longer than 10 lines as a code smell; I think this is harmful but the opinion was common. Ruby had very very nice OO stuff and kinda shrug closure handling so, why not?

        1. 1

          Ruby code heavily uses closures, but they are not magic. There are all sorts of reasons you would want an object instead.

      2. 1

        I always smile when I see stuff like this, objects can be implemented with closures, here we have closures re-implemented with objects. Does ruby not have some native thing for this?

        1. 2

          This is not quite the same thing as closures, although lots of example in this article are closure-adjacent or using them directly. It’s more about shining a light on an OOP pattern that is basically adding more boilerplate than a functional style would.

          Ruby’s Proc is a first-class function and closure, as are Lambda and method blocks (since they are built on Proc). This is why to-procable interfaces are mentioned.