From: Rick DeNatale <rick.denatale@...>
Date: 2007-03-04T00:36:16+09:00
Subject: Re: Duck Typing Hash-Like Objects

On 3/2/07, dblack@wobblini.net <dblack@wobblini.net> wrote:
> >
> > Imagine Shakespeare writing Romeo and Juliet in C++, he'd have to
> > pre-declare all the players, and come up with strong types closely
> > bound to the implementation of the actors, before he wrote a line of
> > dialog.
>
> I don't think this is what's at stake in any of this discussion,
> though.  We're all hip to the dynamicness of Ruby :-)  No one's
> talking about static typing.  But I'd be happy to experiment with a
> moritorium on the word "type".

Well many of us are in fact hip to it, but the fact that attempts to
formalize or mechanize 'duck typing' indicate that not all who swim in
the waters of this group are. And since ruby-talk gets reflected to
comp.lang.ruby and therefore many of the postings get cross-posted to
various comp.lang.* groups means that there are at least some static
typing advocates who read some of what transpires here.

As for avoiding the term type to describe objects are used in a
dynamic language, I'm all for it.

-- 
Rick DeNatale

My blog on Ruby
http://talklikeaduck.denhaven2.com/

IPMS/USA Region 12 Coordinator
http://ipmsr12.denhaven2.com/

Visit the Project Mercury Wiki Site
http://www.mercuryspacecraft.com/