Hi --

On Sun, 29 Sep 2002, MikkelFJ wrote:

>
> <dblack / candle.superlink.net> wrote in message
> news:Pine.LNX.4.44.0209282304250.5063-100000 / candle.superlink.net...
> ....
> > There's a scene in Buster Keaton's film "Sherlock, Jr." where Keaton
> ....
> > side of the gap.  A second earlier or a second later, he would indeed
> > have plummeted -- but for just that instant, the necessary components
> > were in place.
>
> > Ruby objects remind me of that scene.  They are what they are at a
> > given moment, whether or not that's what they were or what they will
> > be.  And in their momentary permutations and capabilities, they can do
> > some very powerful things.
>
> This also very much indicate the fragility of the method.
> I don't believe Ruby objects are so fragile in praxis and I think we should
> not focus too hard on Rubys extreme dynamism (don't do it just because you
> can).

[...]

> So why would people like types: Personally I like the Ruby syntax
> and spirit but also realize that most code do not expose and great
> dependency on extreme dynamism - why shouldn't we be able to compile
> this efficiently?

I guess my instinct is that there's much to learn and gain from Ruby's
dynanism, and that even if it isn't being fully exploited now, that
doesn't mean it's either too dangerous or too arcane (or even too
inefficient) to explore further.


David

-- 
David Alan Black                      | Register for RubyConf 2002!
home: dblack / candle.superlink.net     | November 1-3
work: blackdav / shu.edu                | Seattle, WA, USA
Web:  http://pirate.shu.edu/~blackdav | http://www.rubyconf.com