From: Rich Kilmer <rich@...>
Date: 2002-09-27T05:12:07+09:00
Subject: RE: adding overload to ruby

Well, I would like the idea of optional typing in one instance...to
publish a WSDL file for a Ruby class (as a web service) you need the
types of the parameters...in other words, if Ruby is going to be used as
a producer of WSDL/SOAP web services, types are needed to allow it to
interact with all those statically-typed languages.  So, if Matz is
going to add some sort of type 'hinting' it would be nice to access it
through reflection...somehow ;-)

-rich

> -----Original Message-----
> From: William Djaja Tjokroaminata [mailto:billtj@z.glue.umd.edu] 
> Sent: Thursday, September 26, 2002 3:57 PM
> To: ruby-talk ML
> Subject: Re: adding overload to ruby
> 
> 
> Why not designing a new language with a mix of typed variable 
> and untyped data?
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Bill 
> ==============================================================
> =============
> bbense+comp.lang.ruby.Sep.26.02@telemark.stanford.edu wrote:
> > - - This is not Ruby. If you really want typed arguements, then you 
> > should not be using ruby. It isn't for everybody. This overload 
> > proposal is nothing more than the camel's nose of strict typing 
> > peeking into the tent.
> 
> > - - One of the fundemental things that makes ruby Ruby is that
> > it is not a typed language. This gives the programmer a great
> > deal of flexiblity and power, but every freedom comes with a price. 
> > The price of this flexiblity is giving up the security blanket
> > of type checking. 
> 
>