Martin DeMello wrote:
> 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). ut
>> that makes no sense for a language since any method I write requires (at
>> most) a certain set of functionality from the parameters. o there are
>> 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).

Interesting trivia: Scala is actually short for "scalable language".

jwm