Miss Dada  🏳️‍⚧️

Problem with second one is that it's adding the function to Object's instance_methods. So monkey patching + no namespacing. It's good for scripts, but iffy for apps and shouldn't be done in a lib. The first one actually has this problem, too, but it's added to Object's constants.

I think people probably prefer the first one because you can then namespace the rest of your constants within that one toplevel module/class, which you can't do with functions in Ruby. Anyway, my alternative of preference is `do_stuff = lambda { |x, y| }`

Might have to do with the sad fact that def do_stuff (unnamespaced) ends up on all objects :(

Sure, but you have the same issue with constants (though method names are certainly more likely to conflict than constant names). It's a shame we don't have a way to expose functions without affecting global state somewhere.

Although I mostly agree, ensuring everything is in a class/module does at least give us a bit of consistency and less chance of conflicts given that in Ruby everything is dumped into the global namespace once it's been required anywhere

def do_stuff(x,y) http://ImmaMonster.new (x,y).do_stuff end

Oh yeah I forgot about this pattern too class TotallyNecessary def initialize(x, y) @x = x @y = y end def http://self.call (x, y) new(x, y).call end def call # use instance variables instead of locals. Yay mutability! end end