From: Mark Wilson <mwilson13@...>
Date: 2003-03-25T01:41:16+09:00
Subject: Re: Types (was Re: Ruby lecture slides (was Strong advantages over Python))


On Monday, March 24, 2003, at 09:21 AM, Chris Pine wrote:

> [snip]
> If an object's type(s) are determined by what methods it responds to, 
> and
> those can be added and removed dynamically, then an object can be 
> "cast" in
> some sense.  Then is it correct to say that Ruby is strongly typed?  It
> seems like Ruby is "strongly classed", but weakly typed.  (Or is this 
> simply
> a different usage of the word "type"?)
> [snip]

I think that type and class mean the same thing in Ruby, which I think 
is the proper and consistent way to address the issue of "what kind of 
object (variable, expression, constant, function, etc.) is this?"