From: Jari Williamsson <jari.williamsson@...>
Date: 2008-02-08T04:10:19+09:00
Subject: Re: Ruby type-safe? Ruby strongly/weakly typed? Ruby pitfalls?

rule.rule.rule@gmail.com wrote:
> I added some paragraphs to the Ruby article on Wikipedia:
> 
> Type system
> - Is Ruby type-safe?
> - Is Ruby strongly typed?
> 
> Criticism
> - Lack of variable declarations
> - Dynamic typing
> - Overloaded operators
> - Reflective and meta-programming features
> 
> Some "peer review" appreciated :)
> 
>      http://tinyurl.com/fpwes
> 
> Please feel free to improve upon it, or post comments in this thread.

I find the section about "Reflective and meta-programming features" 
strange or perhaps even wrong:

1. Just about EVERY Ruby script use meta-programming features (through 
attr_accessor, attr_reader, etc), so why would these features be "poorly 
suited for business or large-scale application development"?

2. The given example about difficulty to grasp a class definition just 
doesn't make sense. Why would it matter how a class definition looks in 
a duck-typed language?


Also, the example in the section "Lack of variable declarations" 
contains the following text:
"A simple typo in a variable-name can cause erroneous output from the 
program, and still go undetected for a long time."

IMO, this should be added:
"...for a long time, IF PROPER TESTS AREN'T WRITTEN."


Best regards,

Jari Williamsson