From: matz@... (Yukihiro Matsumoto)
Date: 2002-12-17T00:25:04+09:00
Subject: Re: help -- persuade my boss to adopt ruby

Hi,

In message "Re: help -- persuade my boss to adopt ruby"
    on 02/12/16, "Bulat Ziganshin" <bulatz@integ.ru> writes:

|commercial source :)
|=====================================================
|def Int succ(Int n)
|  n+1
|end
|
|freeze Int  # Int class can't be changed anymore
|Int a=1
|succ(a).to_s
|=====================================================
|
|i think that last program can be both effectively compiled and
|type-checked at compile time

Yes, theoretically possible for this tiny artificial example, by
giving up dynamism, which is a source of Ruby's power.  Besides,
designing and implementing a production level language is totally
different matter.

  * designing a good balanced "Ruby Way" language along with static
    typing is VERY hard, if possible.  Changes will be huge.  And as
    I said before, by optional typing, benefit is not worth the
    cost, I think.

  * static typing implementation will be VERY difficult.  I have hard
    time to create Rite even without static typing, how can I afford
    this big feature?  Parhaps you are underestimating the cost of
    language design and implementation.

  * As somebody else said, it may break the "Ruby Way".  We must be
    very careful here, because if Ruby lose the "Ruby Way", it will
    die, even with static typing.  I'm sure you will forsake Ruby
    without the "Ruby Way", no matter what you say now.

So, tell me, Bulat, who do you think pay the price?
If it's cheap, as you estimated, why don't you do by yourself?
If it's expensive, why should I pay that much?

							matz.