> Most “scripting” languages don't support annotations for checking parameters and return values<p>I coded in Java for many years and Ruby for the last several, the lack of explicit type checking in method signatures or via annotations built into Ruby has not gotten in the way enough where I felt I needed to add something to decorate methods to do some generic form of type checking in Ruby. When I really need to check the type of an object sent into a method, it is typically a method that can handle different types, and in that case, I'll use respond_to?(...) to see that an object passed in as an argument responds to a method, use a case statement, is_a?(...), etc. but that is certainly not on every method- probably more like 1 in 20-30 methods.<p>Also, in the comparison section of the doc, OCaml and Python were represented, but not Ruby. As of late 2013, there are more jobs containing "Ruby" in the job description than "OCaml": <a href="http://www.indeed.com/jobtrends?q=ocaml%2C+ruby&l=" rel="nofollow">http://www.indeed.com/jobtrends?q=ocaml%2C+ruby&l=</a> So, imo it should give Ruby some love with a comparison.