On Thu, 20 Nov 2003 06:29:12 +0900, Sean O'Dell wrote:
> I don't advocate inheritance as a means to communication
> conformity with an interface. Just a keyword that says "I
> implement this interface" is perfectly acceptable.

I've already addressed the uselessness of this. This could also be
implemented outside of the Ruby core -- even as a C extension.

> I would also wager that if it were available, and powerful, you
> would return to at least a little bit of type checking. People
> only miss something for so long before they get used to not having
> it. Of course you don't miss it now.

I don't miss it now because I am *currently* working with three
different languages on concurrent projects. Delphi (Object Pascal)
is strongly/strictly typed, and it's really infuriating because I
can't just write what I want to *do*; I have to type everything,
too. Visual Basic for Applications is optionally typed, but is much
easier to use if you do type variables. Ruby, on the other hand,
allows me to write the code that I want without having to worry
about typing at all.

The *only* place where I can foresee needing a typing mechanism in
Ruby is when I look at wrapping methods in SOAP or other RPC
mechanisms.

-austin
--
austin ziegler    * austin / halostatue.ca * Toronto, ON, Canada
software designer * pragmatic programmer * 2003.11.19
                                         * 18.42.48