From: Sean O'Dell <sean@...>
Date: 2003-11-21T06:10:12+09:00
Subject: Re: "stereotyping"

On Thursday 20 November 2003 12:28 pm, Austin Ziegler wrote:
> Okay. I'm going to respond to this and then I'm going to stop. This
> is getting stupid because someone has decided to take things
> personally and use strawmen and ad hominem attacks instead of reason
> and logic.
>
> On Fri, 21 Nov 2003 04:44:02 +0900, Sean O'Dell wrote:
> > Q: Does Ruby have type checking?
> > A: No.
>
> Incorrect. Ruby *does* have type checking. It's not name-based type
> checking or static type checking or even the ability to enforce
> types in method signatures, but Ruby is a strongly, dynamically
> typed language.
>
> > Q: I need type checking. Will it ever have type checking?
> > A: Maybe, but we can't figure out how to do it right now so our
> >    official answer is that you don't need it. If we figure it out,
> >    then your needs will be considered valid. Why do you need type
> >    checking anyway?
>
> Incorrect. Ruby *may* provide optional signature specification in
> the future. Many people are unconvinced that it's necessary.
> Especially since that there's alternatives that are better (unit
> testing; DbC).
>
> > Q: Because we find it helps us control our large team projects.
> > A: I don't agree that it helps you control your large team
> >    projects. Can you offer more evidence?
>
> Fweeep! Foul on O'Dell! Introduction of circular argument and
> misrepresentation of discussion. The question asked was *how* it
> helps you control your large team projects. That question has not
> been clearly answered by you, although Thien did answer it -- and he
> was given what options Ruby *does* offer (not counting rdoc).
>
> > Q: Okay. We have to look to code quite often in lieu of project
> >    documentation, and normally we look to the description of
> >    classes, and the declarations of function parameters to
> >    determine how to make calls and to understand how classes are
> >    designed that are unfamiliar to some of the programmers on the
> >    team. Type checking would help us to know what parameters are
> >    used by certain methods at-a-glance, which saves us from having
> >    to spend time studying source code to figure things out.
> > A: We always just read the source code, so that should be good
> >    enough for you. Perhaps if you gave us another reason.
>
> Again, an improper representation to both the question and the
> answer. Opening a .h file is no different than opening the source.
> You say you do Java as well as C++, right? There *are* no .h files,
> and opening a .java file gives you the source as well. The same
> applies to Ruby.
>
> > Q: Okay. When an unsuitable object is passed to a method, and that
> >    method tries to call a method of the object that either doesn't
> >    exist or has a different number of parameters than expected, an
> >    error occurs deep inside the method and it's tedious figuring
> >    out how to fix what went wrong. Some form of type checking
> >    would help us recognize our mistakes faster.
> > A: We always just read the source code where the error occured,
> >    unless it's a C-extension object, so that should be good enough
> >    for you. Perhaps another reason would convince us.
>
> Third foul! Strawman on the floor. This differs not at all from the
> situation from C++ or Java.
>
> > Q: Gee, alright, but I'm running out of reasons.
> > A: Thus you are close to realizing the friviolity of your request.
> >    If you had a sufficient quantity of reasons, you could argue
> >    indefinitely, and therefore win the argument. The fact that you
> >    are running out of reasons and are leaving the discussion
> >    indicates that perhaps you don't really know what you need. The
> >    Great Ziegler knows what you need. Or would you prefer to
> >    continue discussing this?
>
> Fourth foul -- stooping to personal attacks.
>
> I'm going to ignore the rest of your diatribe, because it's even
> less reasoned than the above.
>
> Good bye, Mr O'Dell. Continue using Ruby, or not. Don't pretend that
> name checking is even remotely the same as type checking or
> interface guarantee. Half-promises are worse than no promises at
> all.

Whatever you say Ziegler.

	Sean O'Dell