From: Daniel DeLorme <dan-ml@...42.com>
Date: 2006-07-25T18:37:31+09:00
Subject: Re: I'll have the duck!

dblack@wobblini.net wrote:
> I've always thought that Dave Thomas coined it, and that it then
> caught on (including outside of Ruby).  Either way -- I think that
> using "duck" in method and class names dilutes the meaning of "duck
> typing", and also does a disservice to the stuff people are writing,
> some of which may be quite interesting.  When I see these
> prototype-style libraries named "duck" this and that, I'm just aware

So your objection is merely semantic? If DuckTyping isn't the "proper"
word to use, what would you suggest? That little module I knocked
together was just a way to mix-in methods into any object that responds
to the proper quacks--er, messages. DuckTyping seems like a good way to
describe that to me.

> of the fact that duck typing isn't something one can implement in
> code, and that therefore the point of this code is being obscured
> rather than revealed by the naming.

That sounds very silly, like saying that OOP or functional programming
can't be implemented in code.

Daniel