From: "Rule.rule" <rule.rule.rule@...>
Date: 2008-02-18T09:14:56+09:00
Subject: Re: Ruby type-safe? Ruby strongly/weakly typed? Ruby pitfalls?

On Feb 7, 8:10 pm, Jari Williamsson
<jari.williams...@mailbox.swipnet.se> wrote:
> 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?

eehhr... very strange-looking question to me...
Did you EVER try to analyze and understand, or debug, code that
somebody ELSE wrote?
In an OOP language, how do you ever manage to do that, without looking
at the class-definitions?
Or more generally, how would you analyze ANY piece of code without
knowing how the (built-in and user-defined) types are defined?