Is Liskov Substitution Principle incompatible with Introspection or Duck Typing?

Do I understand correctly that Liskov Substitution Principle cannot be observed in languages where objects can inspect themselves, like what is usual in duck typed languages?

Is it justified to use project-wide unique function and variable names to help future refactoring?

Refactoring tools (like ReSharper) often can’t be sure whether to rename a given identifier when, for example refactoring a JavaScript function. I guess this is a consequence of JavaScript’s dynamic nature.

Is this how dynamic language copes with dynamic requirement? [closed]

Closed 10 years ago.

Is there a purely technical term for ‘monkey patching’ [closed]

Closed 10 years ago.

Is there a purely technical term for ‘monkey patching’ [closed]

Closed 10 years ago.

What’s the benefit of having everything as an object in dynamically typed programming language? [closed]

Closed 9 years ago.

What’s the benefit of having everything as an object in dynamically typed programming language? [closed]

Closed 9 years ago.

What’s the benefit of having everything as an object in dynamically typed programming language? [closed]

Closed 9 years ago.

What’s the benefit of having everything as an object in dynamically typed programming language? [closed]

Closed 9 years ago.

Why would many duck-typed dynamic programming languages use a class-based approach instead of prototype-based OOP?

Since quite many dynamic programming languages have the feature of duck typing, and they can also open up and modify class or instance methods at anytime (like Ruby and Python), then…