From: Yukihiro Matsumoto <matz@...>
Date: 2010-09-28T00:29:08+09:00
Subject: [ruby-core:32588] Re: Proposal for Optional Static Typing for Ruby

Hi,

In message "Re: [ruby-core:32585] Proposal for Optional Static Typing for Ruby"
    on Mon, 27 Sep 2010 20:58:51 +0900, Martin Pilkington <pilky@mcubedsw.com> writes:

|I know this is my first post on this list and that I'm relatively new to the Ruby community, and that this can be a somewhat controversial topic (as I've found by asking about it on the #ruby-lang channel). 

Short response:

  "I'm not against types, but I don't know of any type systems that
  aren't a complete pain, so I still like dynamic typing." - Alan Kay

Static typing surely has its benefit, but on the other hand, Ruby the
language strongly encourages duck typing, so that its type system
should not hinder duck typing.  As a result, the type checking should
be based on structural types, not nominal types.  I don't think your
proposal cares about duck typing or considered structural type
conformance.

Although I like your <type> notation, that reminds me the scheme
object system, iff we don't have to write them often.  I don't think I
could stand to write <type> everywhere.

							matz.