# Ruby type-safe? Ruby strongly/weakly typed? Ruby pitfalls? **URL:** \ **Category:** ruby-talk\ **Created:** [6 February 2008 01:20 UTC](https://rubytalk.org/t/ruby-type-safe-ruby-strongly-weakly-typed-ruby-pitfalls/44294 "2008-02-06T01:20:03Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![Rule.rule](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/ad7895/32.png) [@Rule.rule](https://rubytalk.org/u/Rule.rule)\ **Post date:** [6 February 2008 01:20 UTC](https://rubytalk.org/t/ruby-type-safe-ruby-strongly-weakly-typed-ruby-pitfalls/44294/1 "2008-02-06T01:20:03Z")
Hi, I added some paragraphs to the Ruby article on Wikipedia: Type system - Is Ruby type-safe? - Is Ruby strongly typed? Criticism - Lack of variable declarations - Dynamic typing - Overloaded operators - Reflective and meta-programming features Some "peer review" appreciated 🙂      [http://tinyurl.com/fpwes](http://tinyurl.com/fpwes) Please feel free to improve upon it, or post comments in this thread. Greetings, ---
**Author:** ![Day](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/dc4da7/32.png) [@Day](https://rubytalk.org/u/Day)\ **Post date:** [6 February 2008 01:49 UTC](https://rubytalk.org/t/ruby-type-safe-ruby-strongly-weakly-typed-ruby-pitfalls/44294/2 "2008-02-06T01:49:13Z")
I find this interesting. I would count all four of these as assets. If nothing else, I think the Wikipedia article should present the GOOD side of, say, dynamic typing and meta-programming features (Rails uses meta-stuff heavily, no?). I don't want to get into more wikidebate, so I'll just say that. Ben > **···** > > On Feb 5, 2008 7:20 PM, rule.rule.rule@gmail.com \ wrote: > > > Criticism > > - Lack of variable declarations > > - Dynamic typing > > - Overloaded operators > > - Reflective and meta-programming features ---
**Author:** ![Eivind\_Eklund](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/f17d59/32.png) [@Eivind\_Eklund](https://rubytalk.org/u/Eivind_Eklund)\ **Post date:** [6 February 2008 06:56 UTC](https://rubytalk.org/t/ruby-type-safe-ruby-strongly-weakly-typed-ruby-pitfalls/44294/3 "2008-02-06T06:56:31Z")
Def 8 seems to be wrong; you're looking at what a variable refers to, rather than the object type. The object type is constant throughout object lifetime in Ruby (excepting some hacks that I think are C-based). Eivind. > **···** > > On Feb 6, 2008 2:20 AM, rule.rule.rule@gmail.com \ wrote: > > > Hi, > > > > I added some paragraphs to the Ruby article on Wikipedia: > > > > Type system > > - Is Ruby type-safe? > > - Is Ruby strongly typed? ---
**Author:** ![Jari\_Williamsson](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/c4cdca/32.png) [@Jari\_Williamsson](https://rubytalk.org/u/Jari_Williamsson)\ **Post date:** [7 February 2008 19:10 UTC](https://rubytalk.org/t/ruby-type-safe-ruby-strongly-weakly-typed-ruby-pitfalls/44294/4 "2008-02-07T19:10:19Z")
I find the section about "Reflective and meta-programming features" strange or perhaps even wrong: 1. Just about EVERY Ruby script use meta-programming features (through attr\_accessor, attr\_reader, etc), so why would these features be "poorly suited for business or large-scale application development"? 2. The given example about difficulty to grasp a class definition just doesn't make sense. Why would it matter how a class definition looks in a duck-typed language? Also, the example in the section "Lack of variable declarations" contains the following text: "A simple typo in a variable-name can cause erroneous output from the program, and still go undetected for a long time." IMO, this should be added: "...for a long time, IF PROPER TESTS AREN'T WRITTEN." Best regards, Jari Williamsson > **···** > > rule.rule.rule@gmail.com wrote: > > > I added some paragraphs to the Ruby article on Wikipedia: > > > > Type system > > - Is Ruby type-safe? > > - Is Ruby strongly typed? > > > > Criticism > > - Lack of variable declarations > > - Dynamic typing > > - Overloaded operators > > - Reflective and meta-programming features > > > > Some "peer review" appreciated 🙂 > > > >      [Ruby (programming language) - Wikipedia](http://tinyurl.com/fpwes) > > > > Please feel free to improve upon it, or post comments in this thread. ---
**Author:** ![Todd\_Benson](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/34f0e0/32.png) [@Todd\_Benson](https://rubytalk.org/u/Todd_Benson)\ **Post date:** [22 February 2008 13:47 UTC](https://rubytalk.org/t/ruby-type-safe-ruby-strongly-weakly-typed-ruby-pitfalls/44294/5 "2008-02-22T13:47:08Z")
The concept that water is fluid but can only either erode rock over a long period or infiltrate and then break it quickly by freezing comes to mind. Just a thought. Small rant ahead... I've been concerned about using Ruby meta-programming features for some time. People talk about fast development and then go on about the requirement for lengthy unit tests; brag about them, even. We're talking about tests that cannot catch every edge case in a complicated application. Mix that with rigid standards/conventions in a development environment -- another requirement, all in the interest of productivity, of course -- and the turn around for product is better, but not by much. Not to mention maintenance/support/refactoring, which can be costly in hours. The same goes, it seems, for other dynamic-based languages. I'd like someday to see a long-based economic study for a business adapting Ruby in lieu of, say, Java (I really don't like Java that much btw 🙂 Todd > **···** > > On Tue, Feb 5, 2008 at 7:20 PM, rule.rule.rule@gmail.com \ wrote: > > > Hi, > > > > I added some paragraphs to the Ruby article on Wikipedia: > > > > Type system > > - Is Ruby type-safe? > > - Is Ruby strongly typed? > > > > Criticism > > - Lack of variable declarations > > - Dynamic typing > > - Overloaded operators > > - Reflective and meta-programming features > > > > Some "peer review" appreciated 🙂 > > > >      [Ruby (programming language) - Wikipedia](http://tinyurl.com/fpwes) > > > > Please feel free to improve upon it, or post comments in this thread. > > > > Greetings, ---
**Author:** ![Frederick\_Cheung1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/ecc23a/32.png) [@Frederick\_Cheung1](https://rubytalk.org/u/Frederick_Cheung1)\ **Post date:** [6 February 2008 21:17 UTC](https://rubytalk.org/t/ruby-type-safe-ruby-strongly-weakly-typed-ruby-pitfalls/44294/6 "2008-02-06T21:17:02Z")
Same here. They make it a lot easier to create DSLs that in turn make your code a lot more readable. Fred > **···** > > On 6 Feb 2008, at 01:49, Day wrote: > > > On Feb 5, 2008 7:20 PM, rule.rule.rule@gmail.com \ \> \> wrote: > > > > > Criticism > > > - Lack of variable declarations > > > - Dynamic typing > > > - Overloaded operators > > > - Reflective and meta-programming features > > > > I find this interesting. I would count all four of these as assets. If > > nothing else, I think the Wikipedia article should present the GOOD side of, > > say, dynamic typing and meta-programming features (Rails uses meta-stuff > > heavily, no?). I don't want to get into more wikidebate, so I'll just say > > that. ---
**Author:** ![Rule.rule](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/ad7895/32.png) [@Rule.rule](https://rubytalk.org/u/Rule.rule)\ **Post date:** [17 February 2008 22:59 UTC](https://rubytalk.org/t/ruby-type-safe-ruby-strongly-weakly-typed-ruby-pitfalls/44294/7 "2008-02-17T22:59:56Z")
OK, I see what you mean... So this might then be a better example of the type of an object changing at runtime in Ruby... x = 4 class Fixnum   def twice     to\_i \* 2   end end puts x.twice > **···** > > On Feb 6, 7:56 am, Eivind Eklund \ wrote: > > > On Feb 6, 2008 2:20 AM,rule.rule.r...@gmail.com \> \> \ wrote: > > \> Hi, > > > > \> I added some paragraphs to theRubyarticle on Wikipedia: > > > > \> Type system > > \> - IsRubytype-safe? > > \> - IsRubystrongly typed? > > > > Def 8 seems to be wrong; you're looking at what a variable refers to, > > rather than the object type. The object type is constant throughout > > object lifetime inRuby(excepting some hacks that I think are > > C-based). > > > > Eivind. ---
**Author:** ![Rule.rule](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/ad7895/32.png) [@Rule.rule](https://rubytalk.org/u/Rule.rule)\ **Post date:** [17 February 2008 23:04 UTC](https://rubytalk.org/t/ruby-type-safe-ruby-strongly-weakly-typed-ruby-pitfalls/44294/8 "2008-02-17T23:04:54Z")
Sure. Each of these feature have an upside, too, of course. Might be better to have a section called "Cons and Pros" instead of "Criticism" > **···** > > On Feb 6, 2:49 am, Day \ wrote: > > > [Note: parts of this message were removed to make it a legal post.] > > > > On Feb 5, 2008 7:20 PM,rule.rule.r...@gmail.com \ \> wrote: > > > > \> Criticism > > \> - Lack of variable declarations > > \> - Dynamic typing > > \> - Overloaded operators > > \> - Reflective and meta-programming features > > > > I find this interesting. I would count all four of these as assets. If > > nothing else, I think the Wikipedia article should present the GOOD side of, > > say, dynamic typing and meta-programming features (Rails uses meta-stuff > > heavily, no?). I don't want to get into more wikidebate, so I'll just say > > that. > > > > Ben ---
**Author:** ![Rule.rule](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/ad7895/32.png) [@Rule.rule](https://rubytalk.org/u/Rule.rule)\ **Post date:** [17 February 2008 23:09 UTC](https://rubytalk.org/t/ruby-type-safe-ruby-strongly-weakly-typed-ruby-pitfalls/44294/9 "2008-02-17T23:09:55Z")
> \> Criticism > \> - Lack of variable declarations > > This is false to facts. You declare a variable by assigning it for the > first time. Hence its strongly bonds with its first variable's type. > > \> - Dynamic typing > \> - Overloaded operators > \> - Reflective and meta-programming features > > Just because other languages don't have those things don't blame us for > our freedom! > > Responding to the subject line,Rubyis \_strongly\_ typed, like Smalltalk. > There's a difference between OO dynamic typing and strong typesafety. > They are orthogonal, andRubyhas both. Well, if you read the actual wiki article I was referring to, you'd see that "strongly type" and "type-safety" have been defined in many different ways by different people, so one would first at least have to agree on what definition we are talking about. > You can pass any object into a > function, and it will call .methods() on that object, no matter what > their parent type. > > That is so obviously a good thing that many "statically typed" languages > bend over backwards to find some way to provide it. And inRubyyou > cannot accidentally coerce one type into another. Compare Perl, where > variables switch between strings, numbers, and, uh, globs, whenever the > wind blows! Well, doesnt that sometimes happen in Ruby, too? Like the examples I included in the article: (2+3.5) (implicit conversion Fixnum to Float) and (if 42 then "a" else "b" end) (implicit conversion from Fixnum to TrueClass)) Or if you by "variables switch" mean this?   x = 2; x = "a" That can happen in Ruby, too, right? > **···** > > On Feb 6, 3:20 am, Phlip \ wrote: > > >   Phlip ---
**Author:** ![Rule.rule](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/ad7895/32.png) [@Rule.rule](https://rubytalk.org/u/Rule.rule)\ **Post date:** [18 February 2008 00:14 UTC](https://rubytalk.org/t/ruby-type-safe-ruby-strongly-weakly-typed-ruby-pitfalls/44294/10 "2008-02-18T00:14:56Z")
eehhr... very strange-looking question to me... Did you EVER try to analyze and understand, or debug, code that somebody ELSE wrote? In an OOP language, how do you ever manage to do that, without looking at the class-definitions? Or more generally, how would you analyze ANY piece of code without knowing how the (built-in and user-defined) types are defined? > **···** > > On Feb 7, 8:10 pm, Jari Williamsson \ wrote: > > > 2. The given example about difficulty to grasp a class definition just > > doesn't make sense. Why would it matter how a class definition looks in > > a duck-typed language? ---
**Author:** ![Curt\_Sampson](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/e480ec/32.png) [@Curt\_Sampson](https://rubytalk.org/u/Curt_Sampson)\ **Post date:** [7 February 2008 00:44 UTC](https://rubytalk.org/t/ruby-type-safe-ruby-strongly-weakly-typed-ruby-pitfalls/44294/11 "2008-02-07T00:44:36Z")
> \> I added some paragraphs to the Ruby article on Wikipedia: > \> ... > \> - Is Ruby strongly typed? > > Def 8 seems to be wrong; you're looking at what a variable refers to, > rather than the object type. I see what you mean here, he should be leaving the variable referring to the same object, and changing the object itself. > The object type is constant throughout object lifetime in Ruby.... Well, it depends on how you define "type". It's certainly possible, without C code, to modfy the behaviour of enough methods on an object (via defining singleton methods), say a String, to make a reasonable claim that it's no longer a String but a Number. If it looks like a duck, and quacks like a duck.... > > > Criticism > > > - Lack of variable declarations I'd definitely go with this one. I've been bitten so many times by doing something along the lines of     foo ||= "blah" Only to realize that, though it "feels" like a read of an accessor, it's actually the creation of a local variable. (Usually it bites me in more complex situations than this, but this is the general gist.) cjs > **···** > > On 2008-02-06 15:56 +0900 (Wed), Eivind Eklund wrote: > > > On Feb 6, 2008 2:20 AM, rule.rule.rule@gmail.com \> \ wrote: > > > > > On Feb 5, 2008 7:20 PM, rule.rule.rule@gmail.com \>\> \ wrote: > > -- > Curt Sampson \ +81 90 7737 2974 > Mobile sites and software consulting: [http://www.starling-software.com](http://www.starling-software.com) ---
**Author:** ![Moises\_Trovo](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/bc79bd/32.png) [@Moises\_Trovo](https://rubytalk.org/u/Moises_Trovo)\ **Post date:** [20 February 2008 16:18 UTC](https://rubytalk.org/t/ruby-type-safe-ruby-strongly-weakly-typed-ruby-pitfalls/44294/12 "2008-02-20T16:18:53Z")
irb(main):001:0\> 4.class =\> Fixnum irb(main):002:0\> (4.to\_i\*2).class =\> Fixnum The type doesn't change in your example. > **···** > > On Sun, Feb 17, 2008 at 7:59 PM, Rule.rule \ wrote: > > > On Feb 6, 7:56 am, Eivind Eklund \ wrote: > > \> On Feb 6, 2008 2:20 AM,rule.rule.r...@gmail.com \> \> \> \> \> \ wrote: > > \> \> Hi, > > \> > > \> \> I added some paragraphs to theRubyarticle on Wikipedia: > > \> > > \> \> Type system > > \> \> - IsRubytype-safe? > > \> \> - IsRubystrongly typed? > > > > \> > > \> Def 8 seems to be wrong; you're looking at what a variable refers to, > > \> rather than the object type. The object type is constant throughout > > \> object lifetime inRuby(excepting some hacks that I think are > > \> C-based). > > \> > > \> Eivind. > > > > OK, I see what you mean... > > So this might then be a better example of the type of an object > > changing at runtime in Ruby... > > > > x = 4 > > > > class Fixnum > > def twice > >    to\_i \* 2 > > end > > end > > > > puts x.twice ---
**Author:** ![Nando\_Sanchez](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/85e7bf/32.png) [@Nando\_Sanchez](https://rubytalk.org/u/Nando_Sanchez)\ **Post date:** [7 February 2008 15:11 UTC](https://rubytalk.org/t/ruby-type-safe-ruby-strongly-weakly-typed-ruby-pitfalls/44294/13 "2008-02-07T15:11:12Z")
I see all the "criticism" items as strengths in Ruby. If you have problems with your code, write more automated tests then. You call something a weakness when you need to change it, but what if we get rid of these things in Ruby? We end up with c#, VB? No way! You have a sword with 2 blades... you may think one of those blades is a weakness because you get hurt more frecuently, so you wish a sword with only one blade, but may be the problem is in the user of the sword. This reminds me about several good articles related with Dynamic typing versus Static typing. Just my 2 cents... Nando > **···** > > -- > Posted via [http://www.ruby-forum.com/](http://www.ruby-forum.com/). ---
**Author:** ![Arlen\_Christian\_Mar1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/9de053/32.png) [@Arlen\_Christian\_Mar1](https://rubytalk.org/u/Arlen_Christian_Mar1)\ **Post date:** [21 February 2008 01:49 UTC](https://rubytalk.org/t/ruby-type-safe-ruby-strongly-weakly-typed-ruby-pitfalls/44294/14 "2008-02-21T01:49:41Z")
Moreover, the type will never change in its lifetime, as Eivind mentioned. Sure, they have plenty of methods that return different types (String#split, Integer#to\_f, Symbol#to\_proc [1.9/Rails]...), but nothing alters the object's type itself. Arlen > **···** > > On Thu, Feb 21, 2008 at 3:18 AM, Moises Trovo \ wrote: > > > ... > > > > irb(main):001:0\> 4.class > > =\> Fixnum > > irb(main):002:0\> (4.to\_i\*2).class > > =\> Fixnum > > > > The type doesn't change in your example. ---
**Author:** ![Rule.rule](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/ad7895/32.png) [@Rule.rule](https://rubytalk.org/u/Rule.rule)\ **Post date:** [21 February 2008 03:19 UTC](https://rubytalk.org/t/ruby-type-safe-ruby-strongly-weakly-typed-ruby-pitfalls/44294/15 "2008-02-21T03:19:56Z")
Well, I certainly beg to disagree. By any meaningful type-semantics, the type must be considered to change when the set of methods it responds to changes. That Ruby still calls it by the same name, apparently, only aggravates the confusion here. I guess, in Ruby, a type is best defined by its behaviour? Before the redefinition of Fixnum above, for example, calling 3.twice would throw an exception, while after, it will return a value, which is obviously a different behaviour. > **···** > > On Feb 20, 5:18 pm, Moises Trovo \ wrote: > > > On Sun, Feb 17, 2008 at 7:59 PM,Rule.rule\ wrote: > > \> On Feb 6, 7:56 am, Eivind Eklund \ wrote: > > \> \> On Feb 6, 2008 2:20 AM,rule.rule.r...@gmail.com \> \> \> \> \ wrote: > > \> \> \> Hi, > > > > \> \> \> I added some paragraphs to theRubyarticle on Wikipedia: > > > > \> \> \> Type system > > \> \> \> - IsRubytype-safe? > > \> \> \> - IsRubystrongly typed? > > > > \> \> Def 8 seems to be wrong; you're looking at what a variable refers to, > > \> \> rather than the object type. The object type is constant throughout > > \> \> object lifetime inRuby(excepting some hacks that I think are > > \> \> C-based). > > > > \> \> Eivind. > > > > \> OK, I see what you mean... > > \> So this might then be a better example of the type of an object > > \> changing at runtime inRuby... > > > > \> x = 4 > > > > \> class Fixnum > > \> def twice > > \> to\_i \* 2 > > \> end > > \> end > > > > \> puts x.twice > > > > irb(main):001:0\> 4.class > > =\> Fixnum > > irb(main):002:0\> (4.to\_i\*2).class > > =\> Fixnum > > > > The type doesn't change in your example. ---
**Author:** ![ThoML](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/d78d45/32.png) [@ThoML](https://rubytalk.org/u/ThoML)\ **Post date:** [7 February 2008 16:24 UTC](https://rubytalk.org/t/ruby-type-safe-ruby-strongly-weakly-typed-ruby-pitfalls/44294/16 "2008-02-07T16:24:56Z")
> This reminds me about several good articles related with Dynamic typing > versus Static typing. And how little the arguments perpetuated in these articles have changed since I first looked into lisp. BTW why don't we all use Lisp or Smalltalk today? Ruby is a pretty cool language and the perfect tool for a lot of use cases. Some optional strictness here and there really wouldn't hurt though. Regards, Thomas. ---
**Author:** ![Rule.rule](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/ad7895/32.png) [@Rule.rule](https://rubytalk.org/u/Rule.rule)\ **Post date:** [17 February 2008 23:34 UTC](https://rubytalk.org/t/ruby-type-safe-ruby-strongly-weakly-typed-ruby-pitfalls/44294/17 "2008-02-17T23:34:59Z")
> I see all the "criticism" items as strengths inRuby. If you have > problems with your code, write more automated tests then. Well, usually you dont even know there is a "problem with you code" until a bug or runtime-error hits you. Which might be far later than you But more importantly a general problem with just saying "test your code", is that most real-life applications have an infinite number of possible different inputs, and you can only test a finite number of input-cases, no matter how clever your framework is. Which means you can actually never test more than 0% of all possible inputs. And minimum -- particularly when depending on runtime error-checking -- one would like to ensure every code-line is executed at least once during every test. Already this goal alone, is far from a trivial task in real-life applications. > You call > something a weakness when you need to change it, but what if we get rid > of these things inRuby? We end up with c#, VB? No way! My purpose was never to "get rid" of anything, just to point out some problematic areas, in my opinion, in some types of applications. Or simply point to some "Pros and Cons", tradeoffs, etc. I think Ruby is a very interesting and fun tool to use and experiment with, but might still not be the totally ideal one for every possible task and application on earth, if Im allowed to think so... 🙂 > **···** > > On Feb 7, 4:11 pm, Nando Sanchez \ wrote: > > > You have a sword with 2 blades... you may think one of those blades is a > > weakness because you get hurt more frecuently, so you wish a sword with > > only one blade, but may be the problem is in the user of the sword. > > This reminds me about several good articles related with Dynamic typing > > versus Static typing. > > > > Just my 2 cents... > > > > Nando > > -- > > Posted viahttp://www.ruby-forum.com/. ---
**Author:** ![Eric\_Mahurin](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/b4bc9f/32.png) [@Eric\_Mahurin](https://rubytalk.org/u/Eric_Mahurin)\ **Post date:** [21 February 2008 04:16 UTC](https://rubytalk.org/t/ruby-type-safe-ruby-strongly-weakly-typed-ruby-pitfalls/44294/18 "2008-02-21T04:16:00Z")
Please stop responding to this anonymous rule.rule.rule TROLL. The obviously biased comments he put on wikipedia about ruby should be removed. The ranting seems to be all about typing. Compare to the Python page that has about the same typing (duck) as Ruby (with different syntax). ---
**Author:** ![Austin\_Ziegler5](https://yyz1.discourse-cdn.com/flex029/user_avatar/rubytalk.org/austin_ziegler5/32/1985_2.png) [@Austin\_Ziegler5](https://rubytalk.org/u/Austin_Ziegler5)\ **Post date:** [7 February 2008 18:05 UTC](https://rubytalk.org/t/ruby-type-safe-ruby-strongly-weakly-typed-ruby-pitfalls/44294/19 "2008-02-07T18:05:25Z")
Counter-argument: it wouldn't help, either. Many people manage to develop lots of useful software in Ruby without it. -austin > **···** > > On Feb 7, 2008 11:24 AM, tho\_mica\_l \ wrote: > > > \> This reminds me about several good articles related with Dynamic typing > > \> versus Static typing. > > And how little the arguments perpetuated in these articles have > > changed since I first looked into lisp. BTW why don't we all use Lisp or > > Smalltalk today? > > > > Ruby is a pretty cool language and the perfect tool for a lot of use > > cases. Some optional strictness here and there really wouldn't hurt > > though. > > -- > Austin Ziegler \* halostatue@gmail.com \* [http://www.halostatue.ca/](http://www.halostatue.ca/) >                \* austin@halostatue.ca \* [You are in a maze of twisty little passages, all alike. // halo • statue](http://www.halostatue.ca/feed/) >                \* austin@zieglers.ca ---
**Author:** ![Joe8](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/ee59a6/32.png) [@Joe8](https://rubytalk.org/u/Joe8)\ **Post date:** [8 February 2008 01:50 UTC](https://rubytalk.org/t/ruby-type-safe-ruby-strongly-weakly-typed-ruby-pitfalls/44294/20 "2008-02-08T01:50:01Z")
About the optional strictness, I saw this on reddit. [http://www.codecommit.com/blog/ruby/adding-type-checking-to-ruby](http://www.codecommit.com/blog/ruby/adding-type-checking-to-ruby) Thought it was interesting. So you can easily add type checking to your functions if you desire to do so. Joe > **···** > > On Feb 7, 2008 11:24 AM, tho\_mica\_l \ wrote: > > > \> This reminds me about several good articles related with Dynamic typing > > \> versus Static typing. > > > > And how little the arguments perpetuated in these articles have > > changed > > since I first looked into lisp. BTW why don't we all use Lisp or > > Smalltalk today? > > > > Ruby is a pretty cool language and the perfect tool for a lot of use > > cases. Some optional strictness here and there really wouldn't hurt > > though. > > > > Regards, > > Thomas. [Next page](https://rubytalk.org/t/ruby-type-safe-ruby-strongly-weakly-typed-ruby-pitfalls/44294.md?page=2)