From: Austin Ziegler <austin@...>
Date: 2003-11-22T00:04:10+09:00
Subject: Re: Partial Euphoric Type Checking (Super Duck!?)

On Fri, 21 Nov 2003 23:53:49 +0900, Peter wrote:
> Anyway, I'm not contesting that The Ruby Way works. But nobody
> showed evidence that The Ruby Way With Optional Interface Checking
> doesn't work better, though people tried based on flaws of other
> languages. Ruby is a dynamic language, but that doesn't say much
> about its users. (This is not an argument, it's applicable to
> anything, it's a punch line).

The thing that I fear is that the current proposals for Interface
Checking are ... going to change Ruby for the worse.

I agree with the comments that immutable interfaces are probably a
Bad Thing, and that's a core feature of the current proposals.

Why not consider doing interfaces in Ruby as bundles of DbC
"contracts"[1]? That way, you get *dynamic* interfaces that aren't
necessarily simplistic name-checks, which is what I'm opposed to.

-austin
[1] Thanks, Eivind, for the term
--
austin ziegler    * austin@halostatue.ca * Toronto, ON, Canada
software designer * pragmatic programmer * 2003.11.21
                                         * 09.56.54