From: MikkelFJ <mikkelfj-anti-spam@...>
Date: 2003-02-27T07:16:58+09:00
Subject: Re: von Rossum on Strong vs. Weak Typing

On Thu, 27 Feb 2003 06:01:32 +0900, Seth Kurtzberg <seth@cql.com> wrote:

>> Where is OCaml? Haskell? Eiffel? They don't have mentioned problems
>> with generics, and languages with Hindley-Milner typing (OCaml,
>> Haskell, SML, Clean) require much less changes than explicitly-typed
>> languages when the type of something which is just passed down
>> is changed.
>
> Very true.  In my opinion adding Hindley-Milner typing to Ruby would be a 
> huge gain in reliability.

I think you could with a realistic amount of effort write a Ruby syntax in 
OCaml's CamlP4 preprocessor tool. You would loose a lot of Ruby's dynamic 
nature, but I believe you would cover 90% of practical use especially if 
you can find a way to extend classes with new methods using some exception 
handling mechanism.
However, adding a formal static type system to Ruby as such would probably 
be very difficult. When OCaml eventually gets support for generics, a new 
very interesting language with many Ruby like features could emerge.

Ruby will, however, remain Ruby with its extreme flexibility.


Mikkel