8 ms·

I am all for strong, static typing, but in fairness I don't see how C++ can be considered weaker than C? Or alternately how F# is less static than Haskell or w

by trurl 15y ago

I am all for strong, static typing, but in fairness I don't see how C++ can be considered weaker than C? Or alternately how F# is less static than Haskell or weaker than Scala? Or am I just reading too much into the chart?

sambeau 15y ago
…Or that Haskell, with arguably the most sophisticated type system in the world is considered less strongly typed than Ruby! The graph makes no sense to me.
- sambeau 15y ago
  "Standard ML, Objective Caml and Haskell have purely static type systems, in which the compiler automatically infers a precise type for all values. These languages (along with most functional languages) are considered to have stronger type systems than Java, as they permit no implicit type conversions" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strong_typing http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strong_typing
SomeOtherGuy 15y ago
That chart is just plain bizarre. He appears to have placed languages randomly without even bothering to google the languages first to get even a vague idea of roughly where they might belong. I don't think he actually managed to get any of the language listed in approximately the correct area on the chart.