4 ms·

A substantially better description would be "dynamically type safe".

• tel 12y ago
  In the context of this article that's just confusing the issue. "Type" is both well-defined and not the same as "type" in a Ruby context.
  • ionforce 12y ago
    What is type in a Ruby context?
    • tel 12y ago
      Usually in a Ruby context you'd refer to something like Fixnum or String as types when really that's their "class" irb(main):005:0> 3.class => Fixnum Such a "type" doesn't have much to do with "types" as discussed when referring to static types. They're simply orthogonal concepts.
      • mnarayan01 12y ago
        The result of the #class method does not _fully_ encapsulate an object's type (e.g. #extend, #define_singleton_method, etc may have been used to modify the object's type) but every Ruby expression does have a type in exactly the sense as used when talking about static typing; the only difference is when you can (in general) determine that type. The #class method is not orthogonal to type, it is merely incomplete.
        • tel 12y ago
          Sure, but that's not really relevant. All of your "typing" occurs at runtime and thus is entwined in the language dynamics and not its statics.