On Thu, May 14, 2009 at 2:21 AM, C. Dagnon <c-soc-rubyforum / dagnon.net> wrote:
> But my old gripe is that Ruby isn't Duck-Typed, it is explicitly
> No-Typed but implicitly Strong-Typed (except for method-missing).  ¨Âõô
> that makes no sense for a language since any method I write requires (at
> most) a certain set of functionality from the parameters.  ¨Âôèåòáò> interface dependencies, just never declared or, in Ruby, declarable.

You might be interested in structural typing:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Structural_type_system

Of the languages I've looked at, scala is likely to come closest to
what you want. (i.e. a flexibly but statically typed language that
scales both down to small scripts and up to large systems).

martin