3 ms·

Perhaps a bad idea, but at least it was rigorously specified. I note that that Javascript and perl have same ability. See also https://www.destroyallsoftware.

by jrd259 5y ago

Perhaps a bad idea, but at least it was rigorously specified. I note that that Javascript and perl have same ability. See also https://www.destroyallsoftware.com/talks/wat https://www.destroyallsoftware.com/talks/wat

layer8 5y ago
Javascript and Perl are different in that they allow a variable to change it’s type by reassignment (i.e. they would allow the X = S assignment for S == "A"), which PL/1 apparently doesn’t. Weak/strong typing and dynamic/static typing are different axes.
- masklinn 5y ago
  > Javascript and Perl are different in that they allow a variable to change it’s type by reassignment That is orthogonal to the issue at hand. > Weak/strong typing and dynamic/static typing are different axes. And perl and javascript have both, and the weak typing is what gets criticised the most, and what causes the most issues.
  - layer8 5y ago
    Yes, the weak typing is what (rightfully) gets criticized, but the PL/1 design here is IMO closer to C with its implicit conversions but typed variables than to Perl and Javascript.
    - masklinn 5y ago
      > the PL/1 design here is IMO closer to C with its implicit conversions but typed variables than to Perl and Javascript. So in your opinion, the PL/1 design here is closer to a trainwreck than an other trainwreck? Furthermore C's implicit conversions come nowhere near parsing a string to get a float, that's squarely on the Perl/JS side of the board.
      - layer8 5y ago
        Look, I wasn’t expressing any value judgment, and I’m not advocating for implicit conversions. My point was that the implicit conversions in PL/1 have a different context in PL/1 than they have in Perl and Javascript, more akin to the one in C. One effect of that is that the type of a variable remains fixed in PL/1 where it doesn’t in Perl and Javascript. This places it at a different point in design space and changes the dynamics to some extent, which is just a nuance that I find interesting. It wasn’t expressed in the original comment I was replying to, so I thought it would be worth pointing it out so that he distinction isn’t being missed.
masklinn 5y ago
> I note that that Javascript and perl have same ability. And it’s widely considered horrible.

by jrd259 5y ago

layer8 5y ago

Javascript and Perl are different in that they allow a variable to change it’s type by reassignment (i.e. they would allow the X = S assignment for S == "A"), which PL/1 apparently doesn’t. Weak/strong typing and dynamic/static typing are different axes.

masklinn 5y ago
> Javascript and Perl are different in that they allow a variable to change it’s type by reassignment That is orthogonal to the issue at hand. > Weak/strong typing and dynamic/static typing are different axes. And perl and javascript have both, and the weak typing is what gets criticised the most, and what causes the most issues.
- layer8 5y ago
  Yes, the weak typing is what (rightfully) gets criticized, but the PL/1 design here is IMO closer to C with its implicit conversions but typed variables than to Perl and Javascript.
  - masklinn 5y ago
    > the PL/1 design here is IMO closer to C with its implicit conversions but typed variables than to Perl and Javascript. So in your opinion, the PL/1 design here is closer to a trainwreck than an other trainwreck? Furthermore C's implicit conversions come nowhere near parsing a string to get a float, that's squarely on the Perl/JS side of the board.
    - layer8 5y ago
      Look, I wasn’t expressing any value judgment, and I’m not advocating for implicit conversions. My point was that the implicit conversions in PL/1 have a different context in PL/1 than they have in Perl and Javascript, more akin to the one in C. One effect of that is that the type of a variable remains fixed in PL/1 where it doesn’t in Perl and Javascript. This places it at a different point in design space and changes the dynamics to some extent, which is just a nuance that I find interesting. It wasn’t expressed in the original comment I was replying to, so I thought it would be worth pointing it out so that he distinction isn’t being missed.

masklinn 5y ago

> I note that that Javascript and perl have same ability. And it’s widely considered horrible.