From: Eric Mahurin Date: 2008-02-23T00:43:33+09:00 Subject: Re: Ruby type-safe? Ruby strongly/weakly typed? Ruby pitfalls? ------=_Part_1224_18204328.1203695019055 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline On Fri, Feb 22, 2008 at 6:26 AM, Rick DeNatale wrote: > On 2/22/08, Yukihiro Matsumoto wrote: > > > At least, the Wikipedia entry for Ruby is not the right place to > > describe the definition of type-safety and strong typing, since same > > thing happens on language with similar type concept, like Python, > > Lisp, or Smalltalk. They should have their own entries if they didn't > > have yet. > > At the very least that section should be moved from the main article > to the discussion page, it strikes me as violating wikipedias NPOV > policy. > Exactly. In addition to the highly biased comments about typing, you'll see the same thing about operator overloading and reflective/meta programming. I'm guessing that whoever wrote these comments came from Java since it is statically typed and is against operator overloading. These comments also came from someone who has little experience with Ruby. I'd call this troll-like behavior. ------=_Part_1224_18204328.1203695019055--