From: Sean O'Dell <sean@...>
Date: 2004-06-06T14:17:48+09:00
Subject: Re: How to ducktype a Hash?

On Saturday 05 June 2004 18:53, Aredridel wrote:
>
> Duck typing isn't perfect everywhere. With highly type-dependent and
> complex systems like REXML, I think it's an ill fit there.  However, I'm
> glad that in general, Ruby is so dynamically typed -- I do some strange
> things that wouldn't work in other languages, and the ability for things
> like dRb to be so lightweight is a testament to the philosophy.

Dynamic typing doesn't automatically eliminate the possibility of having some 
form of type identification.  All typing means in OOP is "interface."  All 
anyone cares about is, "can this object do these things?"  It would be nice 
if Ruby addressed that, either in the current release branch or in Rite.  
Ruby can be just as dynamic as it is now, and it should still be able to 
report what objects implement what interfaces without sacrificing one bit of 
flexibility.

	Sean O'Dell