On Mar 10, 2004, at 9:18, Elliott Hughes wrote:
> I think you'd probably be best off not getting into this argument. I 
> think
> I'd miss out the whole section.
>

I'm trying not to make it an argument. What I'm hoping to do is to lay 
the groundwork for the Classes aren't types idea. I'll revisit it 
again.

> If you don't, you need to address actual static typer concerns, not the
> straw men you present. For a good overview of what static typers are 
> more
> likely to be thinking, have a look at Bill Venners' recent interview 
> with
> Bjarne Stroustrup: http://www.artima.com/intv/abstreffi2.html
>

Yes - I saw it, but I don't buy (most of) it. OCaml is efficient too. I 
think it comes down in the end to personality. There are cat people, 
and there are dog people. Some folks prefer their variables types, and 
some don't.

Martin Fowler has an interesting blog piece on "enabling vs. directing" 
(http://martinfowler.com/bliki/SoftwareDevelopmentAttitude.html) which 
addresses the point.

Anyway, let's not get into static/dynamic here on ruby-core.  Many 
thanks for the comments.



Cheers

Dave