From: "Rule.rule" <rule.rule.rule@...>
Date: 2008-02-18T08:04:54+09:00
Subject: Re: Ruby type-safe? Ruby strongly/weakly typed? Ruby pitfalls?

On Feb 6, 2:49 am, Day <iam...@gmail.com> wrote:
> [Note:  parts of this message were removed to make it a legal post.]
>
> On Feb 5, 2008 7:20 PM,rule.rule.r...@gmail.com <rule.rule.r...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > Criticism
> > - Lack of variable declarations
> > - Dynamic typing
> > - Overloaded operators
> > - Reflective and meta-programming features
>
> I find this interesting. I would count all four of these as assets. If
> nothing else, I think the Wikipedia article should present the GOOD side of,
> say, dynamic typing and meta-programming features (Rails uses meta-stuff
> heavily, no?). I don't want to get into more wikidebate, so I'll just say
> that.
>
> Ben

Sure. Each of these feature have an upside, too, of course.
Might be better to have a section called "Cons and Pros" instead of
"Criticism"