From: Sean O'Dell <sean@...>
Date: 2003-11-21T02:20:04+09:00
Subject: Re: "stereotyping" (was: Re: Strong Typing (Re: Managing metadata about attribute types) )

On Wednesday 19 November 2003 10:47 pm, Austin Ziegler wrote:
> On Thu, 20 Nov 2003 14:52:17 +0900, Thien Vuong wrote:
> > I'm in the same position too. Love Ruby but cannot recommend it
> > for team development w/o having the language provides some sort of
> > intrinsic interface validation.
>
> Again: why? Why do you need intrinsic interface validation? As
> Michael Campbell noted, if a library writer isn't going to document
> their code, what makes you think that they're going to put interface
> validation in there?

At some point, you ought to quit asking people why.  They've answered you on 
this question, and what you're doing is continually asking "why why why?"

Just accept it.  This is something people want.  It's getting annoying hearing 
about how you can't understand why they want it.

> That's what no one in this discussion has been able to explain. The
> broad statement is made: "I need interface validation!" But no
> convincing explanation as to why it's needed is made, either. OR why
> interface validation is preferred to DbC or TDD -- both of which I
> consider to be superior techniques to compile time type checking.

Explanations have been offered, you've just chosen to remain unconvinced or 
have ignored them.  They are there.  Go browse back and look.

	Sean O'Dell