From: Benjohn Barnes <benjohn@...>
Date: 2006-07-26T06:14:52+09:00
Subject: Re: I'll have the duck!


On 25 Jul 2006, at 05:06, dblack@wobblini.net wrote:

>
> I seem to have hit some kind of nerve here.  (To parapharse your
> earlier comment: I'll take your characterization of me as "delusional"
> as a misstatement :-)  But reread what I wrote originally.  It's got
> nothing to do with stymying innovation.  I'm just suggesting that
> hitching all of this experimentation to the "duck/quack" wagon, when
> it comes to method and class and module names, does a disservice to
> both the duck typing concept (which isn't about writing modules called
> Duck) and to the code you're writing (the possible usefulness of which
> is obscured by the peculiar names).

*nods* I tend to agree. When I posted earlier, it certainly seemed  
like the person I replied to had "gone beyond" or "gone elsewhere"  
from what I understand by the term "duck typing". As I said, it  
seemed a lot like prototype classes (adding capabilities to something  
based on the fact that it already has certain capabilities). I'd also  
agree that duck typing is a practice; you can do it with c++  
templates, for instance, as far as I can see.