From: Nicholas Van Weerdenburg Date: 2004-12-01T14:07:35+09:00 Subject: Re: Optional static typing (or, What can Ruby 2.0 borrow from Boo?) Phil Tomson wrote: >In article <20041130210338.GC9390@puritan.pcp.ath.cx>, >Nikolai Weibull wrote: > > >>* Daniel Berger [Nov 30, 2004 22:00]: >> >> >>>I was just looking at http://boo.codehaus.org/BooManifesto.pdf. One >>>thing I really kinda like is the optional static typing. Wouldn't >>>this allow potential compile time error checking and optimization with >>>a virtual machine running things? >>> >>> >>Finally, a thread on static versus dynamic typing in Ruby! >> nikolai >> >> >> > >Oh no, not another one. > >Quick, duck! (or perhaps I should say, Super Duck (type) to the rescue!) > >[Often red gemstones are used to represent Ruby, but perhaps we should >consider a duck of some sort. Maybe even an ascii-art one we can drag >out for these occasions.] > >Phil > > > Hey- it also has good synergy with the penguin thing. Rudy the Red Ruby Duck Made Java Hacks Cluck Now that's a language with Pluck!