A sharp edge in Ruby

I like the Ruby programming language. I've been using it for several projects, including an interpreter for the BASIC language. (The interpreter for BASIC was an excuse to do something in Ruby and learn about the language.)

My experience with Ruby has been a good one. I find that the language lets me do what I need, and often very quickly. The included classes are well-designed and include the functions I need. From time to time I do have to add some obscure capability, but those are rare.

Yet Ruby has a sharp edge to it, an aspect that can cause trouble if you fail to pay attention.

That aspect is one of its chief features: flexibility.

Let me explain.

Ruby is an object-oriented language, which means the programmer can define classes. Each class has a name, some functions, and usually some private data. You can do quite a bit with class definitions, including class variables, class instance variables, and mix-ins to implement features in multiple classes.

You can even modify existing classes, simply by declaring the same class name and defining new functions. Ruby accepts a second definition of a class and merges it into the first definition, quietly and efficiently. And that's the sharp edge.

This "sharp edge" cut me when I wasn't expecting it. I was working on my BASIC interpreter, and had just finished a class called "Matrix", which implemented matrix operations within the language. My next enhancement was for array operations (a matrix being a two-dimensional structure and an array being a one-dimensional structure).

I defined a class called "Array" and defined some functions, including a "to_s" function. (The name "to_s" is the Ruby equivalent of "ToString()" or "to_string()" in other languages.)

And my code behaved oddly. Existing functions, having nothing to do with arrays or my Array class, broke.

Experienced Ruby programmers are probably chuckling at this description, knowing the problem.

Ruby has its own Array class, and my Array class was not a new class but a modification of the existing, built-in class named "Array". My program, in actuality, was quite different from my imagined idea. When I defined the function "to_s" in "my" Array class, I was actually overwriting the existing "to_s" function in the Ruby-supplied Array class. And that happened quietly and efficiently -- no warning, no error, no information message.

Part of this problem is my fault. I was not on my guard against such a problem. But part of the problem, I believe, is Ruby's -- specifically the design of Ruby. Letting one easily modify an existing class, with no warning, is dangerous. And I say this not simply due to my background with languages that use static checking.

My error aside, I can think of two situations in which this can be a problem. The first is when a new version of the Ruby language (and its system libraries) are released. Are there new classes defined in the libraries? Could the names of those classes duplicate any names I have used in my project? For example, will Ruby one day come with a class named "Matrix"? If it does, it will collide with my class named "Matrix". How will I know that there is a duplicate name?

The second situation is on a project with multiple developers. What happens if two developers create classes with the same name? Will they know? Or will they have to wait for something "weird" to happen?

Ruby has some mechanisms to prevent this problem. One can use namespaces within the Ruby language, to prevent such name conflicts. A simple grep of the code, looking for "class [A-Z][\w]" and then a sort will identify duplicate names. But these solutions require discipline and will -- they don't come "for free".

As I said earlier, this is a sharp edge to Ruby. Is it a defect? No, I think this is the expected behavior for the language. It's not a defect. But it is an aspect of the language, and one that may limit the practicality of Ruby on large applications.

I started this blog with the statement that I like Ruby. I still like Ruby. It has a sharp edge (like all useful tools) and I think that we should be aware of it.