On 7/8/07, Travis D Warlick Jr <warlickt / operissystems.com> wrote:
>

> The difference between Polymorphism and Dynamic-Typing is essentially
> that the former is done at compile-time and the latter at runtime.  The
> similarity between them; however, is that they more-or-less do the same
> thing.

In that context Stefan's response would indeed make some sense, I do
however not adhere to the differentiation.
Polymorphic behavior seems completely unrelated to implementation, it
is IMHO a dangerous path to walk, to define a language by it's
implementation details.
>
> So, to be technical, Ruby is _not_ a Polymorphic language.  That being
> said, Dynamic Typing make Ruby act Polymorphic.
>
Robert
-- 
I always knew that one day Smalltalk would replace Java.
I just didn't know it would be called Ruby
-- Kent Beck