From: Michael Gorsuch <michael.gorsuch@...>
Date: 2006-05-15T07:49:56+09:00
Subject: Re: begining programmer questions

------=_Part_28645_2916667.1147646992392
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Disposition: inline

Corey -

A strongly type language would insist that you declare everything before
use.

Example, in C, you would have to do

"int my_variable" before you put anythign in it.  And it better be an int
;-)

In Ruby, you can just start working.  Objects do have to be created, though
some can be figured out Ruby itself.

Even better, a variable can become something else.  Example:

# 'c' is a string here
c =3D "some text"

# 'c' is now an array of strings
c =3D []
c << "some more text"
c << "some other stuff"

You couldn't get away with this in a strictly typed language such as Java o=
r
C - variables must always behave as they are commanded in the beginning.

On 5/14/06, corey konrad <0011@hush.com> wrote:
>
> you're talking over my head francis, i am a beginner. I have no idea
> what strongly typed even means to be honest.
>
>
> Francis Cianfrocca wrote:
> > A lot of people have the mistaken notion that Ruby is not "strongly
> > typed"
> > (perhaps because they confuse dynamic type-resolution with weak typing)=
,
> > and
> > this is a good counterexample. You might suppose that Ruby could infer
> > from
> > the syntax info[]=3D that it should create an object of type Array, but=
 in
> > fact the method named []=3D is defined on other classes (such as Hash),
> > and
> > could of course be defined or meta-defined in your own classes. So Ruby
> > doesn't try to guess what class you meant.
>
>
> --
> Posted via http://www.ruby-forum.com/.
>
>

------=_Part_28645_2916667.1147646992392--