Is Congruence the right term?


#1

Congruence in math has the implication that things are basically like
even if
they have different aspects or proportions somehow. I want to use the
term for
things like Ruby which tend to do the same things the same way across
classes,
unlike similarly respectable languages (I consider Perl and Python
similar, but
wouldn’t want to fight about that) which have less of a tendency to
carry such
similarities.

Is it appropriate to use the word ‘congruence’ for this? If not it
would be
very nice if there were a word to use. ‘similar’ is too general, and it
would
be unfortunate to have to come up with a word like ‘organic’, as the
food people
did which might also spark unfortunate controversy.

To me, if x is a string, and y is of class Blek, if they both have
method
‘length’, then in that way x.length and y.length would constitute some
aspect of
congruence, and if both class A had a method xyz and B had a class that
yielded
similar results, then they would have in that method a congruent aspect,
especially if the method took the same kinds of arguments.

xc


#2

is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duck_Type the term you’re looking for?

On Jun 3, 5:05 pm, Xeno C. removed_email_address@domain.invalid wrote:

Congruence in math has the implication that things are basically like even if
they have different aspects or proportions somehow. I want to use the term for
things like Ruby which tend to do the same things the same way across classes,
unlike similarly respectable languages (I consider Perl and Python similar, but
wouldn’t want to fight about that) which have less of a tendency to carry such
similarities.

Is it appropriate to use the word ‘congruence’ for this? If not it would be
very nice if there were a word to use. ‘similar’ is too general, and it would
be unfortunate to have to come up with a word like ‘organic’, as the food people