Hi --

On Tue, 25 Jul 2006, Chad Perrin wrote:

> On Tue, Jul 25, 2006 at 05:48:29AM +0900, dblack / wobblini.net wrote:
>>
>> If it's a shift in paradigm, then it isn't "duck typing" (which is a
>> term invented to describe aspects of programming in Ruby).
>>
>> Please choose a different animal :-)
>
> The term "duck typing" predates Ruby, as I recall.  I seem to remember
> it being applied to Objective-C, for instance.
>
> . . . not that anyone outside of NeXT used Objective-C for most of its
> existence.

I've always thought that Dave Thomas coined it, and that it then
caught on (including outside of Ruby).  Either way -- I think that
using "duck" in method and class names dilutes the meaning of "duck
typing", and also does a disservice to the stuff people are writing,
some of which may be quite interesting.  When I see these
prototype-style libraries named "duck" this and that, I'm just aware
of the fact that duck typing isn't something one can implement in
code, and that therefore the point of this code is being obscured
rather than revealed by the naming.


David

-- 
http://www.rubypowerandlight.com => Ruby/Rails training & consultancy
http://www.manning.com/black     => RUBY FOR RAILS (reviewed on
                                     Slashdot, 7/12/2006!)
http://dablog.rubypal.com        => D[avid ]A[. ]B[lack's][ Web]log
dblack / wobblini.net              => me