From: Robert Dober Date: 2008-04-23T00:10:58+09:00 Subject: Re: Ruby and Contract Programming (was Ruby vs. Ada) On Tue, Apr 22, 2008 at 2:35 PM, ThoML wrote: > > My conclusion would be not to go for the throat of strongly typed > > languages (especially not Ada or OCaml) because it would be an error > > to try to occupy all niches of the ecosystem in general. In particular > > I see CP quite inadequate for the evolution of Ruby. > > So don't use it then. > Making it possible for others to incorporate > contracts in the source wouldn't oblige you to do so. Do you mean by this that CP could be done reasonably in Ruby now? I believe that it cannot be done in Ruby nowadays, that the contracts would be too weak and I believe "evolving" Ruby into that direction would not be to Ruby's benefits. You cannot just add features without paying a price now maybe this *is* the thing to do creating a multi paradigm language, I somehow doubt it... > > IMHO ada and ocaml are two rather different languages. Very different, indeed. >The first > statically typed language that comes to mind when saying DBC would > IMHO rather be Eiffel. True, a good example. > > Anyway, there is always a chance that an evolution comes to a quick > halt due to inadaptability. And not much one can do about it because it is rather difficult if not impossible to anticipate the changes in the environment. Robert -- http://ruby-smalltalk.blogspot.com/ --- Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent. Ludwig Wittgenstein