Perl6 also has gradual typing system that allows it to not only type-check but also to optimize the byte-code when types are specified
It seems a bit ironic that the best part of ruby (lack of a type system) is also the worst part of ruby (lack of a type system).
I am not really sure who open letters are actually written for, but I felt this one read rather condescending.
Your comment adds nothing to the conversation, includes no specifics about the ideas presented in the open letter, and probably belongs on Reddit or some other place. The open letter is exactly that and you can learn the answer to your question with a bit of googling: http://lmgtfy.com/?q=what+is+an+open+letter
If anything, your comment could have been directed at yourself: “I am not really sure who this comment is actually written for, but I felt this one read rather condescending.”
The author presents his hopes for the possible Ruby type system. Surely Matz knows all these things already but the open letter might be highly informative to many ruby programmers. Though I was aware of all the gradual type systems mentioned other than StrongTalk, the list is probably very useful to people looking to check out gradual typing before types come to Ruby.
A downvote would have been sufficient. Or perhaps a request to explain why I felt the particular way. I’m not sure how claiming my comment belongs on reddit or and attack on my character elevates your response.