From: Sean O'Dell <sean@...>
Date: 2003-11-21T03:30:09+09:00
Subject: Re: "stereotyping" (was: Re: Strong Typing (Re: Managing metadata about attribute types) )

On Thursday 20 November 2003 09:56 am, dblack@wobblini.net wrote:
> Hi --
>
> On Fri, 21 Nov 2003, Sean O'Dell wrote:
> > 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.
>
> I'm not big on the "Just Do It" stuff (I boycott Nike actually), so
> you'll have to forgive me for not Just Accepting It.  (Very uppity, I
> know :-)  In any case, I think it might be useful to clear a few
> cobwebs and look at this in its most distilled form.  Here I go:

No has to just do it.  But when people ask for something, it gets annoying to 
hear over and over "but why but why but why."  Why is not an appropriate 
question anymore.

Ruby simply isn't going to have these features, so there's a door open now for 
a Ruby-like language that does.  I, personally, would prefer Ruby close that 
door and do SOMETHING for these people.  But if that's not to be, then that's 
not to be.

	Sean O'Dell