3 ms·
My mistake. I was using "untyped" in the sense it is used in programming language theory, which is the same as the term "dynamically typed" in colloquial progra
by noelwelsh 7y ago
My mistake. I was using "untyped" in the sense it is used in programming language theory, which is the same as the term "dynamically typed" in colloquial programmer speak.
- msla 7y agoAnd I'm pointing out how useless of a definition that is, because it renders us unable to distinguish between some languages which do have and use type information and other languages which do not. If a language has enough type information to automatically convert a number into a string, it isn't the same as one where everything is simply a machine word. Plus, my comment about stringly-typed Haskell demonstrates that it's a property of programs more than languages anyway.