3 ms·

>The classification is established terminology in Computer Science No. It is terminology used by the dynamic language communities, not by academics.

coldtea 8y ago
Yeah, I guess all those papers that discuss strong and weak typing weren't written by "real" academics... For example: http://www.lucacardelli.name/Papers/TypefulProg.pdf http://www.lucacardelli.name/Papers/TypefulProg.pdf https://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=97964 https://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=97964 https://www.usenix.org/legacy/event/sec09/tech/full_papers/robertson.pdf https://www.usenix.org/legacy/event/sec09/tech/full_papers/r... https://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=382281 https://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=382281 https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/abstract/document/660187/?reload=true https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/abstract/document/660187/?reload... https://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=38823 https://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=38823 https://patents.google.com/patent/US7086041B2/en https://patents.google.com/patent/US7086041B2/en https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-642-03359-9_2 https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-642-03359-9_... https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/abstract/document/4085614/ https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/abstract/document/4085614/ https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/abstract/document/287604/ https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/abstract/document/287604/ https://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=2635922 https://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=2635922 https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/3-540-54444-5_83 https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/3-540-54444-5_83
- willtim 8y ago
  That looks like a random list of papers. Which one are you claiming defines or even discusses "strong" or "weak" typing? AFAIK those terms have no real definition in type theory.
  - viraptor 8y ago
    You're moving goalposts. You said academics don't use the terms - you were given examples that do so. None of them need to define it - if you're interested, you can do that research. Those terms don't have definitions in type theory and that's ok. Systems defined in the type theory deal with very explicit, theoretical analysis that usually maps well only to static-strong implementations.
    - willtim 8y ago
      Yes goal posts have been moved, but not by me. Some of those papers may informally use these terms for static types, but it is certainly not to describe characteristics of dynamic languages. AFAIK, there is no classification in computer science that describes dynamic languages in this way. This has come from the dynamic language communities. None of those papers demonstrate that it is acceptable to call Python "strongly typed", in fact quite the opposite, as the technology discussed is not available in Python. Well, not yet anyway...

coldtea 8y ago

Yeah, I guess all those papers that discuss strong and weak typing weren't written by "real" academics... For example: http://www.lucacardelli.name/Papers/TypefulProg.pdf http://www.lucacardelli.name/Papers/TypefulProg.pdf https://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=97964 https://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=97964 https://www.usenix.org/legacy/event/sec09/tech/full_papers/robertson.pdf https://www.usenix.org/legacy/event/sec09/tech/full_papers/r... https://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=382281 https://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=382281 https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/abstract/document/660187/?reload=true https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/abstract/document/660187/?reload... https://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=38823 https://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=38823 https://patents.google.com/patent/US7086041B2/en https://patents.google.com/patent/US7086041B2/en https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-642-03359-9_2 https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-642-03359-9_... https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/abstract/document/4085614/ https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/abstract/document/4085614/ https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/abstract/document/287604/ https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/abstract/document/287604/ https://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=2635922 https://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=2635922 https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/3-540-54444-5_83 https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/3-540-54444-5_83

willtim 8y ago
That looks like a random list of papers. Which one are you claiming defines or even discusses "strong" or "weak" typing? AFAIK those terms have no real definition in type theory.
- viraptor 8y ago
  You're moving goalposts. You said academics don't use the terms - you were given examples that do so. None of them need to define it - if you're interested, you can do that research. Those terms don't have definitions in type theory and that's ok. Systems defined in the type theory deal with very explicit, theoretical analysis that usually maps well only to static-strong implementations.
  - willtim 8y ago
    Yes goal posts have been moved, but not by me. Some of those papers may informally use these terms for static types, but it is certainly not to describe characteristics of dynamic languages. AFAIK, there is no classification in computer science that describes dynamic languages in this way. This has come from the dynamic language communities. None of those papers demonstrate that it is acceptable to call Python "strongly typed", in fact quite the opposite, as the technology discussed is not available in Python. Well, not yet anyway...