Maybe that example is not so good. Forgive me for learning the ropes
here with the dynamically-strongly typed stuff. I have been 14 years
in the statically-strongly camp. Some refactorings are not needed
(like the example I gave below) _because_ of leaving the clas type
out of the method signature. Give me a minute to think of better
example.
On Apr 22, 2006, at 11:17 AM, Tim Dysinger wrote:
So Ruby is in the same camp as Python (strongly-dynamically
typed). I like that, but it seems that it makes it harder to write
IDEs for such languages that can be helpful in such things as
refactoring (because of things like not explicitly declaring the
parameter class type in method declarations for example).
_______________________________________________
PDXRuby mailing list
[email protected]
IRC: #pdx.rb on irc.freenode.net
http://lists.pdxruby.org/mailman/listinfo/pdxruby
