On Wednesday 26 February 2003 01:21 pm, Marcin 'Qrczak' Kowalczyk wrote:
> Thu, 13 Feb 2003 10:10:44 +0900, <jbritt / ruby-doc.org> <jbritt / ruby-doc.org> 
pisze:
> > Strong versus Weak Typing
> > A Conversation with Guido van Rossum, Part V
> > by Bill Venners with Frank Sommers
> > February 10, 2003
> >
> > http://www.artima.com/intv/strongweak.html
>
> It's a pity that people judge about static typing by seeing only
> C++ and Java.
>
> Where is OCaml? Haskell? Eiffel? They don't have mentioned problems
> with generics, and languages with Hindley-Milner typing (OCaml,
> Haskell, SML, Clean) require much less changes than explicitly-typed
> languages when the type of something which is just passed down
> is changed.

Very true.  In my opinion adding Hindley-Milner typing to Ruby would be a huge 
gain in reliability.

Note that there is a project underway to do this for Python, with a couple of 
papers already published.

Also, the argument in the referenced article is astoundingly weak.  It doesn't 
address the important issues.  It also ignores the fact that type 
verification by testing is proveable impossible.

-- 
Seth Kurtzberg
M. I. S. Corp.
480-661-1849
seth / cql.com