>I'd be interested to know if anybody is using this too.
    >
    >Might design-by-contract be a worthy addition to (perhaps my
    >implementation!) standard language?
    
I think so, despite the fact that I haven't used it much myself :-)

My point is that DBC is actually *more* useful outside of the static
type checking environment of an Eiffel, C++, or Java.  I truly do not
care about the type of an object I'm calling, but I care deeply about
it's semantics, and that's what Design by Contract is all about.

So yes, my two cents says it is a worthy element that can be used
effectively in the construction of larger systems.  To be effective,
it should be part of the base-level language, and all of the standard
library classes should be annotated with contracts.

Ruby may never need it, but I don't think we'll know either way
unless the facility exists in such an ingrained manner that it
becomes second-nature to use it.

/\ndy

--
Andrew Hunt, The Pragmatic Programmers, LLC.
Innovative Object-Oriented Software Development and Mentoring for Agile Methods
web:   http://www.pragmaticprogrammer.com   email: andy / pragmaticprogrammer.com
--
Author of "The Pragmatic Programmer" * "Programming Ruby" * The Agile Manifesto
Columnist for IEEE Software Magazine
Pragmatic T-shirts available at:   www.pragmaticprogrammer.com/merchandise.html
--