Unlike Java why does not ruby specify the method parameter types.
Because, unlike Java, Ruby is not a strongly typed language.
How can a caller know what type of parameter is the method expecting.
Read the method's documentation?
From: Sreedhar Kesanasetti <kesanasetti.sreedhar@citigroup.com>
To be pedantic, both Java and Ruby are strongly typed. However, Java
is statically types, and Ruby is dynamically typed.
On Mon, Apr 7, 2008 at 4:28 PM, Mike Blackwell <maiku41@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
Because, unlike Java, Ruby is not a strongly typed language.
--
Avdi
Avdi Grimm wrote:
Because, unlike Java, Ruby is not a strongly typed language.
To be pedantic, both Java and Ruby are strongly typed. However, Java
is statically types, and Ruby is dynamically typed.
Ruby is?
irb(main):001:0> t = String.new
=> ""
irb(main):002:0> t.class
=> String
irb(main):003:0> t = 1
=> 1
irb(main):004:0> t.class
=> Fixnum
irb(main):005:0> exit
Doesn't look like it to me, since I can change the type of a variable
with ease.
- --
Phillip Gawlowski
Twitter: twitter.com/cynicalryan
Rule of Open-Source Programming #37:
Duplicate effort is inevitable. Live with it.
On Mon, Apr 7, 2008 at 4:28 PM, Mike Blackwell <maiku41@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
Avdi Grimm wrote:
To be pedantic, both Java and Ruby are strongly typed. However, Java
is statically types, and Ruby is dynamically typed
Indeed. I stand linguistically admonished. 
Avdi Grimm wrote:
>> Because, unlike Java, Ruby is not a strongly typed language.
>
> To be pedantic, both Java and Ruby are strongly typed. However, Java
> is statically types, and Ruby is dynamically typed.Ruby is?
irb(main):001:0> t = String.new
=> ""
irb(main):002:0> t.class
=> String
irb(main):003:0> t = 1
=> 1
irb(main):004:0> t.class
=> Fixnum
irb(main):005:0> exitDoesn't look like it to me, since I can change the type of a variable
with ease.
No, look at the following example:
irb(main):001:0> text = "The number is: "
=> "The number is: "
irb(main):002:0> number = 25
=> 25
irb(main):003:0> puts text + number
TypeError: can't convert Fixnum into String
from (irb):3:in `+'
from (irb):3
El Lunes, 7 de Abril de 2008, Phillip Gawlowski escribió:
> On Mon, Apr 7, 2008 at 4:28 PM, Mike Blackwell <maiku41@sbcglobal.net> > > wrote:
from :0
--
Iñaki Baz Castillo
You're confusing static typing and strong typing.
In a weakly-typed language, like C, it is possible to cast an integer
as a, for instance, a char*, and then call string functions like
sprintf() on it and the compiler will compile it, the runtime will run
it, and it will wreak whatever havoc you please. Most high-level
languages are strongly-typed, these days - neither Java or Ruby will
allow you to call a String method on an Integer. You can assign
whatever object you want to a variable in Ruby - hence *dynamic*
typing - but that object will only ever allow you to call supported
methods on it; otherwise you'll get a NoMethodError. Hence *strong*
typing.
On Mon, Apr 7, 2008 at 5:12 PM, Phillip Gawlowski <cmdjackryan@googlemail.com> wrote:
Ruby is?
Doesn't look like it to me, since I can change the type of a variable
with ease.
--
Avdi
Avdi Grimm wrote:
On Mon, Apr 7, 2008 at 5:12 PM, Phillip Gawlowski > <cmdjackryan@googlemail.com> wrote:
Ruby is?
Doesn't look like it to me, since I can change the type of a variable
with ease.You're confusing static typing and strong typing.
In a weakly-typed language, like C, it is possible to cast an integer
as a, for instance, a char*, and then call string functions like
sprintf() on it and the compiler will compile it, the runtime will run
it, and it will wreak whatever havoc you please. Most high-level
languages are strongly-typed, these days - neither Java or Ruby will
allow you to call a String method on an Integer. You can assign
whatever object you want to a variable in Ruby - hence *dynamic*
typing - but that object will only ever allow you to call supported
methods on it; otherwise you'll get a NoMethodError. Hence *strong*
typing.
Thanks for the enlightenment.
- --
Phillip Gawlowski
Twitter: twitter.com/cynicalryan
Zmodem has bigger bits, softer blocks, and tighter ASCII.
Another way to put it would be that Ruby's variables are type-less, while objects do have a specific type. While we're at it: type != class. Basically the type is defined by all operations (aka methods) usable on an instance - not the class it was created from.
Kind regards
robert
On 08.04.2008 00:53, Phillip Gawlowski wrote:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1Avdi Grimm wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 7, 2008 at 5:12 PM, Phillip Gawlowski > > <cmdjackryan@googlemail.com> wrote:
>> Ruby is?
>>
>> Doesn't look like it to me, since I can change the type of a variable
>> with ease.
>
> You're confusing static typing and strong typing.
>
> In a weakly-typed language, like C, it is possible to cast an integer
> as a, for instance, a char*, and then call string functions like
> sprintf() on it and the compiler will compile it, the runtime will run
> it, and it will wreak whatever havoc you please. Most high-level
> languages are strongly-typed, these days - neither Java or Ruby will
> allow you to call a String method on an Integer. You can assign
> whatever object you want to a variable in Ruby - hence *dynamic*
> typing - but that object will only ever allow you to call supported
> methods on it; otherwise you'll get a NoMethodError. Hence *strong*
> typing.
>Thanks for the enlightenment.