"robertj" <robert_kuzelj / yahoo.com> writes:

> <sigh>
>
> thats the problem.
> sometimes "dymamic guys" argue with as much
> stubborness as the "static typing guys" do.
> only the other way around.
>
> fact is that sometimes "static" typing is
> extremly helpful and sometimes it is in your way
> as much.
>
> the question imo not so much if static typing is useful
> or if dynamic typing is useful
> BUT when to use static typing.

The *real* question is where to get a type-system that is flexible
enough to analyze non-runtime dynamic parts of Ruby without spraying
class names all over. :-)

This is left as an exercise for the reader.

> ciao robertj
-- 
Christian Neukirchen  <chneukirchen / gmail.com>  http://chneukirchen.org