Ruby metaclass confusion

Solution 1:

how do this work

Easy: it doesn't. Not in Ruby, anyway.

Just like in most other languages, there are some core entities that are simply assumed to exist. They fall from the sky, materialize out of thin air, magically appear.

In Ruby, some of those magic things are:

• Object doesn't have a superclass, but you cannot define a class with no superclass, the implicit direct superclass is always Object. [Note: there may be implementation-defined superclasses of Object, but eventually, there will be one which doesn't have a superclass.]
• Object is an instance of Class, which is a subclass of Object (which means that indirectly Object is an instance of Object itself)
• Class is a subclass of Module, which is an instance of Class
• Class is an instance of Class

None of these things can be explained in Ruby.

BasicObject, Object, Module and Class all need to spring into existence at the same time because they have circular dependencies.

Just because this relationship cannot be expressed in Ruby code, doesn't mean the Ruby Language Specification can't say it has to be so. It's up to the implementor to figure out a way to do this. After all, the Ruby implementation has a level of access to the objects that you as a programmer don't have.

For example, the Ruby implementation could first create BasicObject, setting both its superclass pointer and its class pointer to null.

Then, it creates Object, setting its superclass pointer to BasicObject and its class pointer to null.

Next, it creates Module, setting its superclass pointer to Object and its class pointer to null.

Lastly, it creates Class, setting its superclass pointer to Module and its class pointer to null.

Now, we can overwrite BasicObject's, Object's, Module's, and Class's class pointer to point to Class, and we're done.

This is easy to do from outside the system, it just looks weird from the inside.

Once they do exist, however, it is perfectly possible to implement most of their behavior in plain Ruby. You only need very barebones versions of those classes, thanks to Ruby's open classes, you can add any missing functionality at a later time.

In your example, the class Class is not creating a new class named Class, it is reopening the existing class Class, which was given to us by the runtime environment.

So, it is perfectly possible to explain the default behavior of Class#new in plain Ruby:

class Class
  def new(*args, &block)
    obj = allocate # another magic thing that cannot be explained in Ruby
    obj.initialize(*args, &block)
    return obj
  end
end

[Note: actually, initialize is private, so you need to use obj.send(:initialize, *args, &block) to circumvent the access restriction.]

BTW: Class#allocate is another one of those magic things. It allocates a new empty object in Ruby's object space, which is something that cannot be done in Ruby. So, Class#allocate is something that has to be provided by the runtime system as well.

Solution 2:

There is a meta-circularity given by the "twist" link. It is the built-in superclass link from the root's eigenclass to the Class class. This can be expressed by

BasicObject.singleton_class.superclass == Class

A clue to understanding the .class map is seeing this map as derived from the eigenclass and superclass links: for an object x, x.class is the first class in the superclass chain of x's eigenclass. This can be expressed by

x.class == x.eigenclass.superclass(n)

where eigenclass is a "conceptual alias" of singleton_class (resistant to issues with immediate values), y.superclass(i) means i-th superclass of y and n is smallest such that x.eigenclass.superclass(n) is a class. Equivalently, eigenclasses in the superclass chain of x.eigenclass are skipped (see rb_class_real which also reveals that in MRI, even superclass links are implemented indirectly – they arise by skipping "iclasses"). This results in that the class of every class (as well as of every eigenclass) is constantly the Class class.

A picture is provided by this diagram.

The metaclass confusion has 2 main sources:

• Smalltalk. The Smalltalk-80 object model contains conceptual inconsistencies that are rectified by the Ruby object model. In addition, Smalltalk literature uses dialectics in terminology, which unfortunately has not been sufficiently remedied in the Ruby literature.

• The definition of metaclass. At present, the definition states that metaclasses are classes of classes. However, for so called "implicit metaclasses" (the case of Ruby and Smalltalk-80) a much more fitting definition would be that of meta-objects of classes.

Solution 3:

Yes, Class is an instance of itself. It's a subclass of Module, which is also an instance of class, and Module is a subclass of Object, which is also an instance of Class. It is indeed quite circular — but this is part of the core language, not something in a library. The Ruby runtime itself doesn't have the same limits thast you or I do when we're writing Ruby code.

I've never heard the word "metaclass" used to talk about Class, though. It isn't used much in Ruby at all, but when it is, it's usually a synonym for what's officially called a "singleton class of an object," which is an even more confusing topic than Object-Module-Class triangle.