[AccessD] Interfaces

Shamil, 

> and returns the "good old" principles and makes them the 
> foundation of the "new" theory and practice but on higher 
> level of evolution spiral.... 

As long as it is a spiral, and not a circle, I will be happy. Sometimes
I get the sense that neither side of the argument (static vs. dynamic)
is winnable, and what is in favor is what is fashionable for the moment.
But results are what counts, in the end.

> Ken, IMO it can't solve the issues, which can be effectively 
> solved only by Test Driven Development and Unit Testing - 
> the latter is the "new school" and in general the new school 
> programming languages can exist without almost any compile time
binding.

Test Driven Development as an idea has many attractive points. In
theory, it should allow for stability by testing to ensure that changes
don't damage existing functionality. This, in turn, gives you the
confidence to rapidly evolve a large and complex system. That's great,
as long as the new TDD methodology is a genuine advance, and not just a
cover-up for dynamic code that is inherently hard to verify.
Interestingly, the middle-ground design-by-contract ideas of Eiffel have
been largely ignored.

Python has a strong TDD community, so I hope to become more acquainted
with these ideas. 

> ... and effectively use and even go on higher level as Ruby ... 

As Rails goes, so shall Ruby. Rails will be the big test of whether a
language of such conceptual purity as Ruby can succeed in the real
world. By the way, did you find this site: 

  http://www.snakesandrubies.com/

It has pdf and video presentations by the authors of Rails and Django (a
similar Python-based web framework). Lengthy downloads, but worth it.

-Ken