Florian Gross <flgr / ccan.de> Jan 26, 2005 at 01:54 PM wrote:

>David A. Black wrote:
>> One might paraphrase it, perhaps, as:
>>   If it walks and quacks, then it walks and quacks.
>> with the implication that (a) that's all you need to know, and (b)
>> these capabilities unite this object with other objects with the same
>> capabilities.

>That's exactly what I thought was wrong with the common duck typing 
>saying. If it walks and quacks it is not a duck, it is something that 
>walks and quacks. Thanks for stating this. :)

The good thing is, Duck Typing is a great phrase to pull people in from
typed languages.

On the other hand, there are no types (in Ruby). In solving problems by
writing code, our supple, programmer creativity can explore all the
potential to dynamically add and subtract (perhaps even multiply) objects'
capabilities.