Don wrote: > Lutger wrote: ... >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duck_typing#Structural_type_systems > > That Wikipedia page doesn't any make sense to me. Is that *really* what > duck typing is? If so, it's a complete misnomer. Because it's totally > different to "if it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, etc". > If it looks like a duck now, but *didn't* look like a duck three minutes > ago, you can be pretty sure it's NOT a duck! > > Whereas what it calls "structural typing" follows the duck rule > perfectly. There is no reasoning on that page as to why duck typing is > restricted to dynamic languages. > > There's far too much ideology in that page, it ought to get flagged as > inappropriate. Eg this line near the top: > > "Users of statically typed languages new to dynamically typed languages > are usually tempted to .." >
Yes, but most of the (less academic) information on the web about type systems is like this. Hence the confusion about basic terms.
