From: Todd Benson <caduceass@...>
Date: 2008-05-17T08:49:11+09:00
Subject: Re: Not quite getting it.

On Fri, May 16, 2008 at 5:55 PM, Keith Bennett <keithrbennett@gmail.com> wrote:
> Florian, your example is not a fair one; it illustrates an intentional
> violation of the semantics, whereas Roger is referring to an
> accidental one.  In fact, it illustrates the lengths to which one must
> go to trigger the problem in Java.
>
> Roger, your question is one that I have shared.  I think it's
> mathematically impossible to deny that the less restrictive nature of
> duck typing makes it more likely to encounter an inappropriate
> object.  The question, though, is how *much* more likely?  As in
> premature optimization, do we really know that this will be a
> problem?  Or are we incorrectly assuming it?
>
> People with much more experience with Ruby than I (such as Dave)
> report that this is not a problem in practice.  I think the minimal
> risk here needs to be balanced with the formidable benefits of coding
> in such a highly productive language as Ruby.
>
> - Keith

I tend to think that using a RDBMS for data integrity with an overlay
of Ruby is a nice compromise.  I'm still anti-unit_test, but then, I'm
not a seasoned programmer and am probably missing the good stuff.

With meta: there's a very subtle geeky wet dream underlying the whole
concept of meta-programming.  I'll stick around and see what happens,
but I'll use it sparingly.

Todd