From: ara.t.howard@...
Date: 2006-07-26T06:29:05+09:00
Subject: Re: I'll have the duck!

On Wed, 26 Jul 2006 dblack@wobblini.net wrote:

> Let's not get too global about this.  Disagreeing about a Ruby module name
> does not mean thinking that language, in general, is static, etc.  etc.  I
> can prove my post-structuralist credentials to you any time you feel you
> need evidence that I'm aware of the rudiments of post-Saussurian lingustics
> :-)  Meanwhile, let's get back to the topic at hand.

whew - because i can't even spell that!  ;-)

> That's not exactly what I've been saying; rather, my point has been that I
> think that the concept of "duck typing" is in a category that isn't a
> category of things that can be written in code.  If it *is* something that
> can be written in code, then we need a new term for the thing we used to
> call "duck typing", which is a programming practice that does not depend on
> or have any special relationship to any particular modules or methods.  (But
> let's drop it; I've obviously failed to put across that point.)

i actually understand what you are saying.  still, a programming concept that
cannot be programmed is getting a bit metaphysical isn't it?  maybe 'zen
typing'  ;-)

> I've always felt that the Achilles' heel of the duck typing metaphor was the
> "then it *is a* duck" -- which implies that there's a Duck thing out there
> which something else can "be".

exactly.  it's the 'type' in 'duck typing' that names the thing trying to be
avoided.  it is a paradox.

> I don't think it's supposed to be an airtight analytical tool for Ruby's
> design, though, just (as Dave says) a way of thinking about programming in
> Ruby.

agreed.  i'll just add that i think it can be improved upon and/or refined.

cheers.

-a
-- 
suffering increases your inner strength.  also, the wishing for suffering
makes the suffering disappear.
- h.h. the 14th dali lama