Christian Neukirchen wrote:
> "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.

BTW, there is a discussion on the Pragmatic Programmer mailing list 
right now about the pros/cons of static typing.

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/pragprog/



James

-- 

http://www.ruby-doc.org       - Ruby Help & Documentation
http://www.artima.com/rubycs/ - Ruby Code & Style: Writers wanted
http://www.rubystuff.com      - The Ruby Store for Ruby Stuff
http://www.jamesbritt.com     - Playing with Better Toys
http://www.30secondrule.com   - Building Better Tools