duck!

Bruno Medeiros brunodomedeiros+spam at com.gmail
Thu Nov 11 05:28:21 PST 2010


On 16/10/2010 21:30, Michel Fortin wrote:
> On 2010-10-16 16:05:52 -0400, Andrei Alexandrescu
> <SeeWebsiteForEmail at erdani.org> said:
>
>> On 10/16/2010 02:54 PM, kenji hara wrote:
>>> Adapter-Pattern! I'd have forgotten the name.
>>> It is NOT equals to duck-typing.
>>
>> It's a subset of duck typing. I don't think calling a function that
>> supports a limited form of duck typing "duck" is a lie.
>
> Not a lie, just a word with a deceptive meaning that'll lead people to
> believe something else than the truth. Some cynically call that
> marketing speech.
>

I have to agree with Kenji and Michael here: this is not duck typing. 
Duck typing is like example "6. Dynamic object type&  dynamic signature" 
in Kenji's last post.

The problem is not just strictly the name of the adapter function, but 
that from this whole thread there was that the implication that you 
Andrei, and Walter, were willing to market D as "having duck typing", or 
"supporting duck typing", without any qualification on that support 
("subset of", "limited form of", or even just "form of" like the Go 
slides). So I agree with Michael, this would be inaccurate at best, and 
deceitful at worst.

We could argue nomenclature, but there is a much more simple litmus 
test: any non-D developer who used proper duck typing before, and then 
heard "D has duck typing" from some official sources, and then tried D 
out and found out how the actual feature worked, would almost certainly 
feel deceived or disappointed.


-- 
Bruno Medeiros - Software Engineer


More information about the Digitalmars-d mailing list