From: Ryan Pavlik <rpav@...>
Date: 2003-02-13T12:34:57+09:00
Subject: Re: von Rossum on Strong vs. Weak Typing

On Thu, 13 Feb 2003 12:10:18 +0900
Mark Wilson <mwilson13@cox.net> wrote:

<snip> 
> 1. Ruby is strongly-typed, meaning that if an object receives a method
> that it cannot respond to, it will generate a type error if the method
> belongs to a built-in class, or a method missing error otherwise.
<snip>

This isn't strong typing by any definition I've heard... ruby isn't
strongly typed by default.  That is, there aren't places where it
cares about the _type_ (class) of an object, only what it responds to. 
There are certain exceptions of course.

<snip> 
> 3. The future of Ruby will de-emphasize the term type and instead look
> at whether an object responds to method calls.

I think this de-emphasis already exists.  Personally I don't care for
it, but as long as it doesn't get any closer to prototype OOP than it
already is, I'll continue to be happy. ;-)

<snip further good summary>

-- 
Ryan Pavlik <rpav@users.sf.net>

"I distinctly remember dancing on your grave." - 8BT