Re: ducktyping

["Javier Guerra" <javier@...>]

On Wed, Sep 24, 2008 at 3:10 PM, Eike Decker <eike@cube3d.de> wrote:
> I don't think that the problems that you are naming are specifically problems of
> duck typing (actually duck typing seems to me to be the best solution in that
> case that I can think of right now). Or maybe I got you wrong? ;)

right, getting polymorphism across unrelated codebases isn't pretty in
either static or dynamic languages.

the advantage of static OOP is that the compiler would complain until
you write the needed adaptors.

the advantage of duck typed OOP would be that if you're lucky enough
to found some coincidence of interfaces, you just write the adaptors
for the misfit part.  the compiler won't insist on having to redo the
rest (it won't care abut it at all!)


-- 
Javier