William Crawford wrote:
> As for static typing...  I feel your pain.  It's heresy, but I prefer
> static typing.  Inheritance provides everything I need that Duck Typing
> does for me.  (At least, so far.  I'm really new to Ruby.)

Static typing has limitations where dynamic typing doesn't have them, 
but they're really few and far between. Doing proof-of-concept code, or 
exploring more exotic design patterns come to mind. Horses for courses, 
I presume, I'm in the "add optional type / interface / protocol 
adherence checks" camp myself.

> -sigh- Victim, your name triggers the spam filter here.  Am I the only 
> one annoyed by this?

Har. So far, only the spam filters in my head go off. Reminds me of my 
little sister's 12 year old IM friends that whap arbitrary deep-sounding 
fluff into their screen names.

David Vallner