From: David Alan Black <dblack@...>
Date: 2004-05-10T08:13:54+09:00
Subject: Re: [ANN] interface 0.1.0

Hi --

James Britt <jamesUNDERBARb@neurogami.com> writes:

> For example, some developers think Ruby needs static typing.  They find 
> a way to add this in, and make it a habit.  This is arguably a Bad Thing 
> to the extent that one loses a good deal of the power and flexibility of 
> the language.  

[and later...]

> Quite true.  But how often, I wonder, do people start out using 
> something like the StrongTyping module, and later on go back and rip it 
> out because it ends up getting in the way?

I'd like to think so, but I doubt it.  I've always felt that the real
loss with such things is, as you suggest, that they divert people from
understanding and exploring what Ruby offers that isn't the same as
the language(s) they "came from".  Ruby discussions have always (i.e.,
in my 3.5 Ruby years, in the English-language forums) been full of
chameleon-like proposals and rationales, like "adding LISP macros to
Ruby" or "making C++ programmers feel more at home [with ++ or
whatever]" or "adding static/strong/whatever typing" (generally
meaning classname checking combined with suppression of the fact that
Ruby objects are not manacled to their classes of origin) and so on.
I'm actually strangely fascinated by the fact that Ruby attracts so
much of this kind of discourse (since everyone you ask says they
program Ruby because they specifically love Ruby), though in spite of
the fascination my preference would be for the tendency to subside and
for Ruby to be viewed as Ruby.

Dan's announcement was actually very amusing for its ironic and
somewhat jaded tone in this regard -- sort of like, "Oh, all right, if
you want to morph Ruby into Java, here!" :-)


David

-- 
David A. Black
dblack@wobblini.net