3 ms·
i'd say an untyped (well, weakly typed; every language has some notion of types) language was one like C where you can construct a value of some type, and then
by zem 10y ago
i'd say an untyped (well, weakly typed; every language has some notion of types) language was one like C where you can construct a value of some type, and then treat the block of memory in which the physical representation of that value is stored as some other type.
that said, eric lippert has a good blog post on [defining our terms more precisely before even asking the question](https://ericlippert.com/2012/10/15/is-c-a-strongly-typed-or-a-weakly-typed-language/ https://ericlippert.com/2012/10/15/is-c-a-strongly-typed-or-...)
- telotortium 10y agoThere are in fact typeless languages that are neither statically nor dynamically typed, although they aren't particularly relevant nowadays -- BCPL, Forth, and assembly, among others. These languages have only words that hold integer values, with different operators treating the words as an integer, pointer, etc. Those who claim that only static types are worthy of the name "type" would probably consider both dynamically typed and typeless languages to be equally untyped -- dynamically typed languages just support richer semantics on their values, such as storing a "tag" (i.e., dynamic type) in each value.