From: Dumaiu <Dymaio@...>
Date: 2006-07-25T21:35:10+09:00
Subject: Re: I'll have the duck!

Daniel DeLorme wrote:
>
> 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.
>

	It's confusing.  For my part, I wouldn't mind so much seeing a module
called 'DuckTyping'--I would think, 'Okay, here's someone taking a shot
at codifying a general concept'; but encountering the words 'duck' and
'quack' in actual method names makes me suspicious that someone is
trying to be "cute."  Or the issue can be linguistic.  To take the
example of your test module, on line 2 I see

	@@quacks = +whatever+

and my mind hits a rut.  Is this a list of objects|methods|classes that
are capable of quacking, or of the different vocal sounds that ducks
make?  Similarly, farther down you have a method called

	ducktype_method(methodname)

But is 'ducktype_method' a noun or a verb?  Perhaps you can apperceive
the meaning of a method definition at first glance, but I (and probably
some others) have to think about it, and the reuse of the same minimal
vocabulary

	ducktype :quack do
		def quack_loudly
			quack.upcase
		end
	end

is frustrating.  It would be even more so if I were brand-new to Ruby.

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

	For this comparison to be valid, you would have to turn duck typing
into a programming paradigm: Duck-Oriented Programming.  Is that really
worth it?