From: "Rule.rule" Date: 2008-02-22T09:49:57+09:00 Subject: Re: Ruby type-safe? Ruby strongly/weakly typed? Ruby pitfalls? On Feb 21, 5:16 am, Eric Mahurin wrote: > [Note: parts of this message were removed to make it a legal post.] > > Please stop responding to this anonymous rule.rule.rule TROLL. > > The obviously biased comments he put on wikipedia about ruby should be > removed. The ranting seems to be all about typing. Compare to the Python > page that has about the same typing (duck) as Ruby (with different syntax). I am sorry if I got totally misunderstood by some here, just need to point out my intention was certainly none of "trolling". I only recently started to really "catch up" on Ruby (and Rails) and trying to get my grips around this innovative and peculiar language. But I do have a long background in OOP, as well as functional languages and -- *shudder* -- type-theory, and also long experience with several industrial projects both building and maintaining large-scale applications. While I certainly can see the strong sides and potentials in Ruby, I also found some characteristics that, from my own background and experience, would seem obviously problematic in real-life development. If my posts look "biased", it is not because I dont see the good things in Ruby -- they are, well, good things and they just dont concern me. While the ones I brought up on wiki, certainly do concern me. And, right or wrong, I felt a worthwhile way of possibly getting some more understanding or clarification of those issues, would be to summarize and put them up on the web, to get some feedback from other users that may have different experience -- thats all. Finally: If you -- for whatever reason -- dont like this thread, why dont you just ignore it and let those who want or not want to participate or read it, simply decide by themselves?