method

Method overloading depends on the method signatures being different, but in this case the methods differ only in name.

In real code, that particular method doesn't get used all that much, but its existence tells you nothing about Ruby's design.

However, how would method overloading allow for the simple given example of shuffling a sequence?

You run a thousand different micro-benchmarks on the performance difference between re-binding a cached method handle for a setter, or just calling instance_variable_set.

Photon Mapping might be biased, but it's extremely easy to make it consistent by using the method outlined by Knaus and Zwicker [1].

In C#, you have to create a class with a static main method.

The Passivhaus method was influenced by the Saskatchewan Conservation house project.

Seeing a function called: `generateDownloadUrl: Photo => String` tells me more in less time and space than the equivalent Ruby method or lambda ever did.

Using that method photon mapping will converge to the right result.

Using a hex editor, I discovered that some unicode whitespace got in there and was interpreted as a method or variable.

Why shouldn't every single object have a 'nil?' method?

Fig uses conventions on method names similar with Ruby.

> A closure is an object that supports exactly one method: "apply".

If there is a pair of methods name, name$, method ends with $ means calling this method will change the object itself, while calling the other won't." This seems very un-Java - surely the Java way to achieve this would be method overloading.

Why would every single object have a "nil?" method?

Standby power supplies (the thing that powers the IR receiver and power button while your TV is "off") wouldn't function as-is, since the common method is to use a capacitor+zener across the power line.