From: Phil Tomson <rubyfan@...>
Date: 2006-07-26T01:15:37+09:00
Subject: Re: I'll have the duck!

On 7/25/06, 7rans <transfire@gmail.com> wrote:
>
 > The problem, David, is that you are adding _nothing constructive_ to
> the conversation. You are merely being persnickety over terminology. No
> one else is having any trouble over the use the word "duck" in the
> code, or what it represents. Certainly I don't expect "duck" to become
> a keyword of the language, but it serves perfectly well for this
> exploration -- it is ultimately an analogy after all, "if it walks like
> duck and talks like a duck..." We're using the analogy.

Actually, David is doing something very important: he's making sure
that we name things correctly and that we not change our terminology.
You've used the term 'duck-typing' in a way that differs from it's
traditional use in tthe Ruby community.  David is calling you on that
and basically saying that either you need to come up with a different
terminology to describe what you're doing or we'll have to come up
with a different name for what currently has been considered
'duck-typing'.

It's been said that naming is one of the most important acts of
programming.  What we call things, objects and even concepts is
important.  If you take a name (duck typing) and apply it to a concept
that's different than what is the accepted association in the
community, then in some way your 'theft' diminishes our ability to
communicate within our discourse community.   Some would even say it
diminishes the whole concept of 'duck typing'.  Look up  Wittgenstein
on wikipedia.

Phil