From: Tim Connor Date: 2008-02-02T05:55:00+09:00 Subject: Re: Gedankenexperiment on method duck type safety On Feb 1, 6:43 am, Daniel DeLorme wrote: > > "static duck typing" > It's fun to think about Yeah, that was my main point all along; to see what I'd learn about good practices, from the responses, if nothing else. The point that the interpreter does throw an error eventually, so why worry about making it earlier, for instance, is not entirely invalid. I still think you can get weird bugs (hard to find or account for ones that only surface on the missed corner case every so often) based on violation of contract, if you don't remember to test in your method preface/header each and every time. I mean, really who hasn't been bitten by a bug that took some digging that had to do with a parameter not meeting some of their assumptions? On the other, I do love the grace, ease, and verbosity of ruby's loose typing. If I ever have to go back to a statically typed language, particularly one as verbose about it has Java or C#, it's going to hurt.