From: Lyndon Samson <lyndon.samson@...>
Date: 2005-04-30T02:09:38+09:00
Subject: Re: ruby static typing

On 4/30/05, Ryan Leavengood <mrcode@netrox.net> wrote:
> 
> The moral? When developing in a certain programming language, the most
> efficiency and ease of use can be had when following the languages design
> and idioms. Ruby is dynamically typed, and trying to force it to a static
> typing paradigm is going against the language and its idioms.

Well to be fair, I never asked for the entire language to change its
type model, just for some form of interface that could 'seal off'
large sections of functionality/code, like components.

Although they were GUI specific, Remember VBX/OCX, how sweet it was
that you could drop in 3rd party functionality into a MS IDE and the
IDE would immediatly know what the interface to be presented to the
programmer was.

Imagine trying to do the same in Ruby or another softly typed
language, A whole lot of framework code would need to be written and
maintained ( human written unit tests vs compiler enforced type
checking ).

In 'programming in the large' Loose coupling is pretty much enforced
if all you have is an interface, there is no option to 'poke around'
in object internals.

I'm not being instistent, just contemplative :-)







> 
> When coding Java, use the Java Way.
> When coding C++, use the C++ Way.
> When coding Ruby, use the Ruby Way.
> 
> Simple as that :)
> 
> Regards,
> Ryan
> 
> 


-- 
Into RFID? www.rfidnewsupdate.com Simple, fast, news.