He said: “I think I do.” and he pointed me to a website which showed 21 Ruby tricks “you should be using in your own code.”

Trick #9 was the use of the and keyword to couple statements together to make “one liners”. It was billed as a trick that [cough] “more confident” Ruby programmers use.

So I got the pickaxe book out and looked up the and keyword. I showed Justin where it said that the second clause won’t be executed if the first clause is false (or nil!) So if handle_batch ever returned nil, then display_batch would never be called.

Warning bells were going off in my head. This was clearly an unintended use of the and keyword that could have rather nasty repercussions. I thought it was somewhat irresponsible for a website that boasted expertise in programming to tell people they should be using a dangerous stunt like this.

However, handle_batch did not return nil, so the and worked well enough in this case; and we had more to do. So I made my point to Justin and then we kept working, leaving the and in place.

An hour later we were making changes to a function. Suddenly a whole bunch of our tests broke. (You know what I’m going to say, don’t you?) The failure mode didn’t make any sense. Suddenly a whole bunch of processing simply wasn’t getting done.

It was Justin who said: “Wow, I’ll bet it’s that and. And it was. The change we had made had indirectly caused handle_batch to return a nil.

OK, this was a fun little story. You might think the moral is “don’t use and for one-liners” or “don’t trust websites that claim expertise”. Yes, those would be good conclusions to draw. But I’m concerned about something else.

The “and trick” is clever. In programming, clever != smart. (OK, sorry, that was clever…) Using a keyword like and in a manner for which it was not intended, and in a way that is not guaranteed to work in all cases, is risky. It bothers me.

By the same token it bothers me that so many Ruby programmers use the ||= trick for lazy initialization. I know it works. I know it’s a standard idiom. I’m not trying to stop people from doing it. Hell, I use it too because it’s become a standard idiom. But it bothers me nonetheless because it entered our vocabulary of idioms because it was clever trick; and clever little tricks have a way of turning into nasty little surprises.

Ruby is a fun and powerful language. But that doesn’t mean we should go out of our way to be clever. We shouldn’t be eager to adopt quirky little idioms and erudite little stunts just because they are cute, or neat, or nifty. Code is hard enough to understand without having to think sideways through the next novel application of the ?: operator.

Professionals write clear and clean code. They use their language well. They use their language efficiently. But they don’t aspire to be master tricksters. Rather, they prove their professionalism by writing code that needs no explanation.

I did some experimenting over the last few days to integrate RSpec using SWIG (Simplified Wrapper and Interface Generator), a tool for bridging libraries written in C and C++ to other languages, like Ruby. The Ruby section of the SWIG manual was very helpful.

My Proof-of-Concept Code

Here is a zip file of my experiment: rspec_for_cpp.zip

This is far from a complete and working solution, but I think it shows promise. See the Current Limitations section below for details.

Unzip the file into a directory. I’ll assume you named it rspec_for_cpp. You need to have gmake, gcc, SWIG and Ruby installed, along with the RSpec “gem”. Right now, it only builds on OS X and Linux (at least the configurations on my machines running those OS’s – see the discussion below). To run the build, use the following commands:

    
        $ cd rspec_for_cpp/cpp
        $ make 
    

You should see it finish with the lines

    
        ( cd ../spec; spec *_spec.rb )
        .........

        Finished in 0.0***** seconds

        9 examples, 0 failures
    

Congratulations, you’ve just tested some C and C++ code with RSpec! (Or, if you didn’t succeed, see the notes in the Makefile and the discussion below.)

The Details

I’ll briefly walk you through the files in the zip and the key steps required to make it all work.

cexample.h

Here is a simple C header file.

    
        /* cexample.h */
        #ifndef CEXAMPLE_H
        #define CEXAMPLE_H
        #ifdef __cplusplus
         extern "C" {
        #endif
        char* returnString(char* input);
        double returnDouble(int input);
        void  doNothing();

        #ifdef __cplusplus
         }
        #endif
        #endif
    

Of course, in a pure C shop, you won’t need the #ifdef __cplusplus stuff. I found this was essential in my experiment when I mixed C and C++, as you might expect.

cpp/cexample.c

Here is the corresponding C source file.

    
        /* cexample.h */

        char* returnString(char* input) {
            return input;
        }

        double returnDouble(int input) {
            return (double) input;
        }

        void  doNothing() {}
    

cpp/CppExample.h

Here is a C++ header file.

    
        #ifndef CPPEXAMPLE_H
        #define CPPEXAMPLE_H

        #include <string>

        class CppExample 
        {
        public:
            CppExample();
            CppExample(const CppExample& foo);
            CppExample(const char* title, int flag);
            virtual ~CppExample();

            const char* title() const;
            void        title(const char* title);
            int         flag() const;
            void        flag(int value);

            static int countOfCppExamples();
        private:
            std::string _title;
            int         _flag;
        };

        #endif
    

cpp/CppExample.cpp

Here is the corresponding C++ source file.

    
        #include "CppExample.h" 

        CppExample::CppExample() : _title("") {}
        CppExample::CppExample(const CppExample& foo): _title(foo._title) {}
        CppExample::CppExample(const char* title, int flag) : _title(title), _flag(flag) {}
        CppExample::~CppExample() {}

        const char* CppExample::title() const { return _title.c_str(); }
        void        CppExample::title(const char* name) { _title = name; }

        int  CppExample::flag() const { return _flag; }
        void CppExample::flag(int value) { _flag = value; }

        int CppExample::countOfCppExamples() { return 1; }
    

cpp/example.i

Typically in SWIG, you specify a .i file to the swig command to define the module that wraps the classes and global functions, which classes and functions to expose to the target language (usually all in our case), and other assorted customization options, which are discussed in the SWIG manual. I’ll show the swig command in a minute. For now, note that I’m going to generate an example_wrap.cpp file that will function as the bridge between the languages.

Here’s my example.i, where I named the module example.

    
        %module example
        %{
            #include "cexample.h" 
            #include "CppExample.h"    
        %}
        %include "cexample.h" 
        %include "CppExample.h" 
    

It looks odd to have header files appear twice. The code inside the %{...%} (with a ’#’ before each include) are standard C and C++ statements, etc. that will be inserted verbatim into the generated “wrapper” file, example_wrap.cpp, so that file will compile when it references anything declared in the header files. The second case, with a ’%’ before the include statements¹, tells SWIG to make all the declarations in those header files available to the target language. (You can be more selective, if you prefer…)

Following Ruby conventions, the Ruby plugin for SWIG automatically names the module with an upper case first letter (Example), but you use require 'example' to include it, as we’ll see shortly.

Building

See the cpp/Makefile for the gory details. In a nutshell, you run the swig command like this.

    
        swig -c++ -ruby -Wall -o example_wrap.cpp example.i
    

Next, you create a dynamically-linked library, as appropriate for your platform, so the Ruby interpreter can load the module dynamically when required. The Makefile can do this for Linux and OS X platforms. See the Ruby section of the SWIG manual for Windows specifics.

If you test-drive your code, which tends to drive you towards minimally-coupled “modules”, then you can keep your libraries and build times small, which will make the build and test cycle very fast!

spec/cexample_spec.rb and spec/cppexample_spec.rb

Finally, here are the RSpec files that exercise the C and C++ code. (Disclaimer: these aren’t the best spec files I’ve ever written. For one thing, they don’t exercise all the CppExample methods! So sue me… :)

    
        require File.dirname(__FILE__) + '/spec_helper'
        require 'example'

        describe "Example (C functions)" do
          it "should be a constant on Module" do
            Module.constants.should include('Example')
          end
          it "should have the methods defined in the C header file" do
            Example.methods.should include('returnString')
            Example.methods.should include('returnDouble')
            Example.methods.should include('doNothing')
          end
        end

        describe Example, ".returnString" do
          it "should return the input char * string as a Ruby string unchanged" do
            Example.returnString("bar!").should == "bar!" 
          end  
        end

        describe Example, ".returnDouble" do
          it "should return the input integer as a double" do
            Example.returnDouble(10).should == 10.0
          end
        end

        describe Example, ".doNothing" do
          it "should exist, but do nothing" do
            lambda { Example.doNothing }.should_not raise_error
          end
        end
    

and

    
    require File.dirname(__FILE__) + '/spec_helper'
    require 'example'

    describe Example::CppExample do
      it "should be a constant on module Example" do
        Example.constants.should include('CppExample')
      end
    end

    describe Example::CppExample, ".new" do
      it "should create a new object of type CppExample" do
        example = Example::CppExample.new("example1", 1)
        example.title.should == "example1" 
        example.flag.should  == 1
      end
    end

    describe Example::CppExample, "#title(value)" do
      it "should set the title" do
        example = Example::CppExample.new("example1", 1)
        example.title("title2")
        example.title.should == "title2" 
      end
    end

    describe Example::CppExample, "#flag(value)" do
      it "should set the flag" do
        example = Example::CppExample.new("example1", 1)
        example.flag(2)
        example.flag.should == 2
      end
    end
    

If you love RSpec like I do, this is a very compelling thing to see!

And now for the small print:

Current Limitations

As I said, this is just an experiment at this point. Volunteers to make this battle-ready would be most welcome!

General

The Example Makefile File

It Must Be Hand Edited for Each New or Renamed Source File

You’ve probably already solved this problem for your own make files. Just merge in the example Makefile to pick up the SWIG- and RSpec-related targets and rules.

It Only Knows How to Build Shared Libraries for Mac OS X and Linux (and Not Very Well)

Some definitions are probably unique to my OS X and Linux machines. Windows is not supported at all. However, this is also easy rectify. Start with the notes in the Makefile itself.

The module.i File Must Be Hand Edited for Each File Change

Since the format is simple, a make task could fill a template file with the changed list of source files during the build.

Better Automation

It should be straightforward to provide scripts, IDE/Editor shortcuts, etc. that automate some of the tasks of adding new methods and classes to your C and C++ code when you introduce them first in your “spec” files. (The true TDD way, of course.)

Specific Issues for C Code Testing

I don’t know of any other C-specific issues, so unit testing with Ruby is most viable today for C code. Although I haven’t experimented extensively, C functions and variables are easily mapped by SWIG to a Ruby module. The Ruby section of the SWIG manual discusses this mapping in some detail.

Specific Issues for C++ Code Testing

More work will be required to make this viable. It’s important to note that SWIG cannot handle all C++ constructs (although there are workarounds for most issues, if you’re committed to this approach…). For example, namespaces, nested classes, some template and some method overloading scenarios are not supported. The SWIG manual has details.

Also, during my experiment, SWIG didn’t seem to map const std::string& objects in C++ method signatures to Ruby strings, as I would have expected (char* worked fine).

Is It a Viable Approach?

Once the General issues listed above are handled, I think this approach would work very well for C code. For C++ code, there are more issues that need to be addressed, and programmers who are committed to this strategy will need to tolerate some issues (or just use C++-language tools for some scenarios).

Conclusions: Making It Development-Team Ready

I’d like to see this approach pushed to its logical limit. I think it has the potential to really improve the productivity of C and C++ developers and the quality of their test coverage, by leveraging the productivity and power of dynamically-typed languages like Ruby. If you prefer, you could use Tcl, Python, even Java instead.

License

This code is complete open and free to use. Of course, use it at your own risk; I offer it without warranty, etc., etc. When I polish it to the point of making it an “official” project, I will probably release under the Apache license.

¹ I spent a lot of time debugging problems because I had a ’#’ where I should have had a ’%’! Caveat emptor!

The Active Record pattern is a way to map database rows to objects. For example, let’s say we have an Employee object with name and address fields:

public class Employee extends ActiveRecord {
  private String name;
  private String address;
  ...
} 

We should be able to fetch a given employee from the database by using a call like:

Employee bob = Employee.findByName("Bob Martin");

We should also be able to modify that employee and save it as follows:

bob.setName("Robert C. Martin");
bob.save();

In short, every column of the Employee table becomes a field of the Employee class. There are static methods (or some magical reflection) on the ActiveRecord class that allow you to find instances. There are also methods that provide CRUD functions.

Even shorter: There is a 1:1 correspondence between tables and classes, columns and fields. (Or very nearly so).

It is this 1:1 correspondence that bothers me. Indeed, it bothers me about all ORM tools. Why? Because this mapping presumes that tables and objects are isomorphic.

The Difference between Objects and Data Structures

From the beginning of OO we learned that the data in an object should be hidden, and the public interface should be methods. In other words: objects export behavior, not data. An object has hidden data and exposed behavior.

Data structures, on the other hand, have exposed data, and no behavior. In languages like C++ and C# the struct keyword is used to describe a data structure with public fields. If there are any methods, they are typically navigational. They don’t contain business rules.

Thus, data structures and objects are diametrically opposed. They are virtual opposites. One exposes behavior and hides data, the other exposes data and has no behavior. But that’s not the only thing that is opposite about them.

Algorithms that deal with objects have the luxury of not needing to know the kind of object they are dealing with. The old example: shape.draw(); makes the point. The caller has no idea what kind of shape is being drawn. Indeed, if I add new types of shapes, the algorithms that call draw() are not aware of the change, and do not need to be rebuilt, retested, or redeployed. In short, algorithms that employ objects are immune to the addition of new types.

By the same token, if I add new methods to the shape class, then all derivatives of shape must be modified. So objects are not immune to the addition of new functions.

Now consider an algorithm that uses a data structure.

switch(s.type) {
  case SQUARE: Shape.drawSquare((Square)s); break;
  case CIRCLE: Shape.drawCircle((Circle)s); break;
}

We usually sneer at code like this because it is not OO. But that disparagement might be a bit over-confident. Consider what happens if we add a new set of functions, such as Shape.eraseXXX(). None of the existing code is effected. Indeed, it does not need to be recompiled, retested, or redeployed. Algorithms that use data structures are immune to the addition of new functions.

By the same token if I add a new type of shape, I must find every algorithm and add the new shape to the corresponding switch statement. So algorithms that employ data structures are not immune to the addition of new types.

Again, note the almost diametrical opposition. Objects and Data structures convey nearly opposite immunities and vulnerabilities.

Good designers uses this opposition to construct systems that are appropriately immune to the various forces that impinge upon them. Those portions of the system that are likely to be subject to new types, should be oriented around objects. On the other hand, any part of the system that is likely to need new functions ought to be oriented around data structures. Indeed, much of good design is about how to mix and match the different vulnerabilities and immunities of the different styles.

Active Record Confusion

The problem I have with Active Record is that it creates confusion about these two very different styles of programming. A database table is a data structure. It has exposed data and no behavior. But an Active Record appears to be an object. It has “hidden” data, and exposed behavior. I put the word “hidden” in quotes because the data is, in fact, not hidden. Almost all ActiveRecord derivatives export the database columns through accessors and mutators. Indeed, the Active Record is meant to be used like a data structure.

On the other hand, many people put business rule methods in their Active Record classes; which makes them appear to be objects. This leads to a dilemma. On which side of the line does the Active Record really fall? Is it an object? Or is it a data structure?

This dilemma is the basis for the oft-cited impedance mismatch between relational databases and object oriented languages. Tables are data structures, not classes. Objects are encapsulated behavior, not database rows.

At this point you might be saying: “So what Uncle Bob? Active Record works great. So what’s the problem if I mix data structures and objects?” Good question.

Missed Opportunity

The problem is that Active Records are data structures. Putting business rule methods in them doesn’t turn them into true objects. In the end, the algorithms that employ Active Records are vulnerable to changes in schema, and changes in type. They are not immune to changes in type, the way algorithms that use objects are.

You can prove this to yourself by realizing how difficult it is to implement an polymorphic hierarchy in a relational database. It’s not impossible of course, but every trick for doing it is a hack. The end result is that few database schemae, and therefore few uses of Active Record, employ the kind of polymorphism that conveys the immunity of changes to type.

So applications built around ActiveRecord are applications built around data structures. And applications that are built around data structures are procedural—they are not object oriented. The opportunity we miss when we structure our applications around Active Record is the opportunity to use object oriented design.

No, I haven’t gone off the deep end.

I am not recommending against the use of Active Record. As I said in the first part of this blog I think the pattern is very useful. What I am advocating is a separation between the application and Active Record.

Active Record belongs in the layer that separates the database from the application. It makes a very convenient halfway-house between the hard data structures of database tables, and the behavior exposing objects in the application.

Applications should be designed and structured around objects, not data structures. Those objects should expose business behaviors, and hide any vestige of the database. The fact that we have Employee tables in the database, does not mean that we must have Employee classes in the application proper. We may have Active Records that hold Employee rows in the database interface layer, but by the time that information gets to the application, it may be in very different kinds of objects.

Conclusion

So, in the end, I am not against the use of Active Record. I just don’t want Active Record to be the organizing principle of the application. It makes a fine transport mechanism between the database and the application; but I don’t want the application knowing about Active Records. I want the application oriented around objects that expose behavior and hide data. I generally want the application immune to type changes; and I want to structure the application so that new features can be added by adding new types. (See: The Open Closed Principle)

It's easy to see why people feel this way when you consider that most of the applications of AOP have been to solve obvious "cross-cutting concerns" (CCCs) like object-relational mapping, transactions, security, etc. In other words, AOP looks like just one of many tools in your toolbox to solve a particular group of problems.

I'll use Ruby as my example dynamic language, since Ruby is the example I know best. It's interesting to look at Ruby on Rails source code, where you find a lot of "AOP-like" code that addresses the CCCs I just mentioned (and more). This is easy enough to do using Ruby's metaprogramming tools, even though tooling that supports AOP semantics would probably make this code easier to write and maintain.

This is going to be a long blog entry already, so I won't cite detailed examples here, but consider how Rails uses method_missing to effectively "introduce" new methods into classes and modules. For example, in ActiveRecord, the many possible find methods and attribute read/write methods are "implemented" this way.

By the way, another excellent Ruby framework, RSpec used method_missing for similar purposes, but recently refactored its implementation and public API to avoid method_missing, because having multiple frameworks attempt to use the same "hook" proved very fragile!

Also in Rails, method "aliasing" is done approximately 175 times, often to wrap ("advise") methods with new behaviors.

Still, is there really a need for AOP tooling in dynamic languages? First, consider that in the early days of OOP, some of us "faked" OOP using whatever constructs our languages provided. I wrote plenty of C code that used structs as objects and method pointers to simulate method overloading and overriding. However, few people would argue today that such an approach is "good enough". If we're thinking in objects, it sure helps to have a language that matches those semantics.

Similarly, it's true that you can implement AOP using sufficiently powerful metaprogramming facilities, but it's a lot harder than having native AOP semantics in your language (or at least a close approximation thereof in libraries and their DSLs).

Before proceeding, let me remind you what AOP is for in the first place. AOP is essentially a new approach to modularization that complements other approaches, like objects. It tries to solve a group of problems that other modularity approaches can't handle, namely the fine-grained interaction of multiple domain models that is required to implement required functionality.

Take the classic example of security management. Presumably, you have one strategy and implementation for handling authentication and authorization. This is one domain and your application's "core business logic" is another domain.

In a non-AOP system, it is necessary to insert duplicate or nearly duplicate code throughout the system that invokes the security subsystem. This duplication violates DRY, it clutters the logic of the code where it is inserted, it is difficult to test, maintain, replace with a new implementation, etc.

Now you may say that you handle this through a Spring XML configuration file or an EJB deployment configuration file, for example. Congratulations, you are using an AOP or AOP-like system!

What AOP seeks to do is to allow you to specify that repeated behavior in one place, in a modular way.

There are four pieces required for an AOP system:

1. Interception

You need to be able to "intercept" execution points in the program. We call these join points in the AOP jargon and sets of them that the aspect writer wants to work with at once are called pointcuts (yes, no whitespace). At each join point, advice is the executable code that an aspect invokes either before, after or both before and after ("around") the join point.

Note that the most powerful AOP language, AspectJ, let's you advise join points like instance variable reads and writes, class initialization, instance creation, etc. The easiest join points to advise are method calls and many AOP systems limit themselves to this capability.

2. Introduction

Introduction is the ability to add new state and behavior to an existing class, object, etc. For example, if you want to use the Observer pattern with a particular class, you could use an aspect to introduce the logic to maintain the list of observers and to notify them when state changes occur.

3. Inspection

We need to be able to find the join points of interest, either through static or runtime analysis, preferably both! You would also like to specify certain conditions of interest, which I'll discuss shortly.

4. Modularization

If we can't package all this into a "module", then we don't have a new modularization scheme. Note that a part of this modularization is the ability to somehow specify in one place the behavior I want and have it affect the entire system. Hence, AOP is a modularity system with nonlocal effects.

Okay. How does pure Ruby stack up these requirements? If you're a Java programmer, the idea of Interception and Introduction, where you add new state and behavior to a class, may seem radical. In languages with "open classes" like Ruby, it is trivial and common to reopen a class (or Module) and insert new attributes (state) and methods (behavior). You can even change previously defined methods. Hence, Interception and Introduction are trivial in Ruby.

This is why Ruby programmers assume that AOP is nothing special, but what they are missing are the complete picture for Inspection and Modularization, even though both are partially covered.

There is a rich reflection API for finding classes and objects. You can write straightforward code that searches for classes that "respond to" a particular method, for example. What you can't do easily is query based on state. For example, in AspectJ, you can say, "I want to advise method call X.m when it is called in the context flow ('cflow') of method call Y.m2 somewhere up the stack..." Yes, you can figure out how to do this in Ruby, but it's hard. So, we're back to the argument I made earlier that you would really like your language to match the semantics of your ideas.

For modularization, yes you can put all the aspect-like code in a Module or Class. The hard part is encapsulating any complicated "point cut" metaprogramming in one place, should you want to use it again later. That is, once you figure out how to do the cflow pointcuts using metaprogramming, you'll want that tricky bit of code in a library somewhere.

At this point, you might be saying to yourself, "Okay, so it might be nice to have some AOP stuff in Ruby, but the Rails guys seem to be doing okay without it. Is it really worth the trouble having AOP in the language?" Only if AOP is more applicable than for the limited set of problems described previously.

Future Applications of AOP??

Here's what I've been thinking about lately. Ruby is a wonderful language for creating mini-DSLs. The ActiveRecord DSL is a good example. It provides relational semantics, while the library minimizes the coding required by the developer. (AR reads the database schema and builds an in-memory representation of the records as objects.)

Similarly, there is a lot of emphasis these days on development that centers around the domain or features of the project. Recall that I said that AOP is about modularizing the intersection of multiple domains (and recall my previous blog on the AOSD 2007 Conference where Gerald Sussman remarked that successful systems have more than one organizing principle).

I think we'll see AOP become the underlying implementation of powerful DSLs that allow programmers who are not AOP-literate express cross-cutting concerns in domain-specific and intuitive languages. AOP will do the heavy lifting behind the scenes to make the fine-grained interactions work. I really don't expect a majority of developers to become AOP literate any time soon. In my experience, too many so-called developers don't get objects. They'll never master aspects!

Shameless Plug

If you would like to hear more of my ideas about AOP in Ruby and aspect-oriented design (AOD), please come to my talk at SD West, this Friday at 3:30. I'm also giving a full-day tutorial on AOD in Ruby and Java/AspectJ at the ICSE 2007 conference in Minneapolis, May 26th.

Specifically, as the ruby-talk discussion title says, it’s the immutable classes (NilClass, FalseClass, TrueClass, Fixnum, and Symbol) that do this. Consider, for example, the following irb session:

irb 1:0> 5.respond_to? :dup
=> true
irb 2:0> 5.dup
TypeError: can't dup Fixnum
        from (irb):1:in `dup'
        from (irb):1
irb 3:0> 

If you don’t know Ruby, the first line asks the Fixnum object 5 if it responds to the method dup (with the name expressed as a symbol, hence the ”:”). The answer is true, becuase this method is defined by the module Kernel, which is included by the top-level class Object, an ancestor of Fixnum.

However, when you actually call dup on 5, it raises TypeError, as shown.

So, this looks like a classic Liskov Substitution Principle violation. The term for this code smell is Refused Bequest (e.g., see here) and it’s typically fixed with the refactoring Replace Inheritance with Delegation.

The email thread is about a proposal to change the library in one of several possible ways. One possibility is to remove dup from the immutable classes. This would eliminate the unexpected behavior in the example above, since 5.respond_to?(:dup) would return false, but it would still be an LSP violation, specifically it would still have the Refused Bequest smell.

One scenario where the current behavior causes problems is doing a deep copy of an arbitrary object graph. For immutable objects, you would normally just want dup to return the same object. It’s immutable, right? Well, not exactly, since you can re-open classes and even objects to add and remove methods in Ruby (there are some limitations for the immutables…). So, if you thought you actually duplicated something and started messing with its methods, you would be surprised to find the original was “also” modified.

So, how serious is this LSP issue (one of several)? When I pointed out the problem in the discussion, one respondent, Robert Dober, said the following (edited slightly):

I would say that LSP does not apply here simply because in Ruby we do not have that kind of contract. In order to apply LSP we need to say at a point we have an object of class Base, for example. (let the gods forgive me that I use Java)

void aMethod(final Base b){
   ....
}

and we expect this to work whenever we call aMethod with an object that is a Base. Anyway the compiler would not really allow otherwise.

SubClass sc;  // subclassing Base od course
aMethod( sc ); // this is expected to work (from the type POV).

Such things just do not exist in Ruby, I believe that Ruby has explained something to me:

• OO Languages are Class oriented languages
• Dynamic Languages are Object oriented languages.

Replace Class with Type and you see what I mean.

This is all very much IMHO of course but I feel that the Ruby community has made me evolve a lot away from “Class oriented”.

He’s wrong that the compiler protects you in Java; you can still throw exceptions, etc. The JDK Collection classes have Refused Bequests. Besides that, however, he makes some interesting points.

As a long-time Java programmer, I’m instinctively uncomfortable with LSP violations. Yet, the Ruby API is very nice to work with, so maybe a little LSP violation isn’t so bad?

As Robert says, we approach our designs differently in dynamic vs. static languages. In Ruby, you almost never use the is_a? and kind_of? methods to check for type. Instead, you follow the duck typing philosophy (“If it acts like a duck, it must be a duck”); you rely on respond_to? to decide if an object does what you want.

In the case of dup for the immutable classes, I would prefer that they not implement the method, rather than throw an exception. However, that would still violate LSP.

So, can we still satisfy LSP and also have rich base classes and modules?

There are many examples of traits that one object might or should support, but not another. (Those of you Java programmers might ask yourself why all objects support toString, for example. Why not also toXML...?)

Coming from an AOP background, I would rather see an architecture where dup is added only to those classes and modules that can support it. It shouldn’t be part of the standard “signature” of Kernel, but it should be present when code actually needs it.

In fact, Ruby makes this sort of AOP easy to implement. Maybe Kernel, Module, and Object should be refactored into smaller pieces and programmers should declaratively mixin the traits they need. Imagine something like the following:

irb 1:0> my_obj.respond_to? :dup
=> false
irb 2:0> include 'DupableTrait'  
irb 2:0> my_obj.respond_to? :dup
=> true
irb 4:0> def dup_if_possible items
irb 5:1>  items.map {|item| item.respond_to?(:dup) ? item.dup : item}
irb 6:1> end
...

In other words, Kernel no longer “exposes the dup abstraction”, by default, but the DupableTrait module “magically” adds dup to all the classes that can support it. This way, we preserve LSP, streamline the core classes and modules (SRP and ISP anyone?), yet we have the flexibility we need, on demand.