It's frustrating that the number one reason people want to add type checking to Ruby is basically "everyone else is doing it".
Show this thread
-
What do you want from a type system ? Structural typing with inference at compile time could say "see, this code wont ever be reached"
Structural typing would be weak at best in Ruby, given that methods are defined on objects so dynamically.
-
-
But in Ruby, structural and nominal type are pretty much the same because most module/classes have 100+ methods
-
Just because a class has 100+ methods doesn't mean that you rely on all of them at the point where you'd state your expected interface.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
It's the same for the OCaml object model, it could work
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.