Hi --

On Wed, 28 Oct 2009, Charles Oliver Nutter wrote:

> On Tue, Oct 27, 2009 at 5:29 PM, Ryan Davis <ryand-ruby / zenspider.com> wrote:
>> You do NOT need static code for it to be fast. See smalltalk, self, and many
>> many other examples.
>
> Sure, it's just easier with static types. Don't like it, don't use it.

It seems like in this project, the notion of type as being synonymous
with class "wins", so to speak, over the non-class-bound concept of
type. I'm curious whether this is because doing it that way meshes
better with other languages that might be involved, or because the
concept of type as object capability at a given point in runtime is
(as I think it might be) almost impossible to capture statically at
all. I'm thinking of module inclusion as well as singleton-level
operations.


David

-- 
The          Ruby training with D. Black, G. Brown, J.McAnally
Compleat     Jan 22-23, 2010, Tampa, FL
Rubyist      http://www.thecompleatrubyist.com

David A. Black/Ruby Power and Light, LLC (http://www.rubypal.com)