From: Peter <Peter.Vanbroekhoven@...>
Date: 2003-11-22T12:36:53+09:00
Subject: Re: Partial Euphoric Type Checking (Super Duck!?)

> I agree. But I would like to see more coming out of this meanwhile long
> thread than just the next impasse. That's why I'm trying to help Sean a
> bit by keeping him on the true ruby path. And maybe we've finally got
> someone who's stubborn enough to give it a real try and put interface
> checking to the test. If it changes ruby for the better, that great. If it
> only does that for some people, and leaves other people untouched, that's
> an addition too. When it changes things for the worse, we can start
> arguing again...

Replace that "by keeping him on the true ruby path" by "by trying to keep
him on what I think is the true ruby path a bit more" (I'm a lazy
typist...) Anyway, I'd like it if you'd help me doing that than just pass
judgement on his proposal. I'd like this issue to finally become a bit
clearer to me.

BTW, maybe some other idea... Duck typing is in my opinion the dynamic
equivalent of generics in a statically typed language. Well, at least if
they'd make some decent implementation of it. However in a statically
typed language you need to make the compiler happy with type declarations
while in a dynamically typed language you just need your common sense.
This notion simply extends to duck typing as well. IMO both the static and
the dynamic world are moving in the same general direction. Also for
static languages, unit testing as well as DbC are gaining field, or at
least the academic world, or at least the part of it I know.

Peter