3 ms·
What on earth are you talking about? > The internet is dynamically typed. That's an incoherent claim. Dynamic typing is where types belong to values. Static
by mjburgess 9y ago
What on earth are you talking about?
> The internet is dynamically typed.
That's an incoherent claim.
Dynamic typing is where types belong to values. Static typing is where they apply to terms.
Really to call the former "typing" is misnomer. It's an abuse of the word "type" to mean "memory mode". It has not much relationship to typing in the logic/math/philosophy of logic sense in which types are sets and type relationships are those between sets.
It is the Curry-Howard isomorphism (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curry%E2%80%93Howard_correspondence https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curry%E2%80%93Howard_correspon...) which defines the correspondance between types in computer science and mathematics.
This is "static" only because the "dynamic" alternative isnt really an alternative at all, and really just a different kind of thing all together.
- dang 9y agoThis crosses into incivility. That breaks the site guidelines. Please re-read them and don't do that when commenting here. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
- mjburgess 9y agoI'm not sure how this is incivil? The claim is logically incoherent: typing cannot be a property of the internet, in the same way tuesday cannot be pink nor can addition sound terrifying. The claim is a category error: the internet cannot posses such a property. In addition, to say, of something, that it is " is a made up thing " is a degree of hubris that is presumably reasonably met by being perplexed at overconfidence of the claim posed with such little correct information. Is being perplexed more uncivil than hubris? Are we really policing people's language to this minute degree?
- dang 9y ago"What on earth are you talking about" is uncivil. Your comment didn't need that. Actually you broke this guideline as well: "Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize." It's possible that shalabhc intended to make a mathematical claim, but a stronger plausible interpretation is easy to come up with (e.g. "it's hard to enforce static guarantees across the software that interoperates on the internet"). The reason we ask people to follow this guideline is not so much that it's nicer, but that nitpicking things each other probably didn't say is tedious and detracts from good conversation, which is what we're really hoping for.