4 ms·

There seem to be two competing nomenclatures around strong/weak typing where people mean static/dynamic instead.

jnpnj 1y ago
yes, untyped names != untyped objects
josephg 1y ago
Some people mistakenly call dynamic typing "weak typing" because they don't know what those words mean. PSA: Static typing / dynamic typing refers to whether types are checked at compile time or runtime. "Static" = compile time (eg C, C++, Rust). "Dynamic" = runtime (eg Javascript, Ruby, Excel) Strong / weak typing refers to how "wibbly wobbly" the type system is. x86 assembly language is "weakly typed" because registers don't have types. You can do (more or less) any operation with the value in any register. Like, you can treat a register value as a float in one instruction and then as a pointer during the next instruction. Ruby is strongly typed because all values in the system have types. Types affects what you can do. If you treat a number like its an array in ruby, you get an error. (But the error happens at runtime because ruby is dynamically typed - thus typechecking only happens at runtime!).
- 0x457 1y ago
  It's strongly typed, but it's also duck typed. Also, in ruby everything is an object, even the class itself, so type checking there is weird. Sure it stops you from running into "'1' + 2" issues, but won't stop you from yeeting VeryRawUnvalidatedResponseThatMightNotBeAuthorized to a function that takes TotalValidatedRequestCanUseDownstream. You won't even notice an issue until: - you manually validate - you call a method that is unavailable on the wrong object.
  - arrowsmith 1y ago
    You just described why I fell out of love with Ruby.
    - 0x457 1y ago
      Because you wanted to do 1 + '1'?
- deleted 1y ago
  [deleted]
ameliaquining 1y ago
I recall a type theorist once defined the terms as follows (can't find the source): "A strongly typed language is one whose type system the speaker likes. A weakly typed language is one whose type system the speaker dislikes." Related Stack Overflow post: https://stackoverflow.com/questions/2690544/what-is-the-difference-between-a-strongly-typed-language-and-a-statically-typed https://stackoverflow.com/questions/2690544/what-is-the-diff... So yeah I think we should just give up these terms as a bad job. If people mean "static" or "dynamic" then they can say that, those terms have basically agreed-upon meanings, and if they mean things like "the type system prohibits [specific runtime behavior]" or "the type system allows [specific kind of coercion]" then it's best to say those things explicitly with the details filled in.
- dpryden 1y ago
  I think you might be thinking of https://cdsmith.wordpress.com/2011/01/09/an-old-article-i-wrote/ https://cdsmith.wordpress.com/2011/01/09/an-old-article-i-wr... It says: > I give the following general definitions for strong and weak typing, at least when used as absolutes: > Strong typing: A type system that I like and feel comfortable with > Weak typing: A type system that worries me, or makes me feel uncomfortable

yes, untyped names != untyped objects

Some people mistakenly call dynamic typing "weak typing" because they don't know what those words mean. PSA: Static typing / dynamic typing refers to whether types are checked at compile time or runtime. "Static" = compile time (eg C, C++, Rust). "Dynamic" = runtime (eg Javascript, Ruby, Excel) Strong / weak typing refers to how "wibbly wobbly" the type system is. x86 assembly language is "weakly typed" because registers don't have types. You can do (more or less) any operation with the value in any register. Like, you can treat a register value as a float in one instruction and then as a pointer during the next instruction. Ruby is strongly typed because all values in the system have types. Types affects what you can do. If you treat a number like its an array in ruby, you get an error. (But the error happens at runtime because ruby is dynamically typed - thus typechecking only happens at runtime!).

0x457 1y ago
It's strongly typed, but it's also duck typed. Also, in ruby everything is an object, even the class itself, so type checking there is weird. Sure it stops you from running into "'1' + 2" issues, but won't stop you from yeeting VeryRawUnvalidatedResponseThatMightNotBeAuthorized to a function that takes TotalValidatedRequestCanUseDownstream. You won't even notice an issue until: - you manually validate - you call a method that is unavailable on the wrong object.
- arrowsmith 1y ago
  You just described why I fell out of love with Ruby.
  - 0x457 1y ago
    Because you wanted to do 1 + '1'?
deleted 1y ago
[deleted]

ameliaquining 1y ago

I recall a type theorist once defined the terms as follows (can't find the source): "A strongly typed language is one whose type system the speaker likes. A weakly typed language is one whose type system the speaker dislikes." Related Stack Overflow post: https://stackoverflow.com/questions/2690544/what-is-the-difference-between-a-strongly-typed-language-and-a-statically-typed https://stackoverflow.com/questions/2690544/what-is-the-diff... So yeah I think we should just give up these terms as a bad job. If people mean "static" or "dynamic" then they can say that, those terms have basically agreed-upon meanings, and if they mean things like "the type system prohibits [specific runtime behavior]" or "the type system allows [specific kind of coercion]" then it's best to say those things explicitly with the details filled in.

dpryden 1y ago
I think you might be thinking of https://cdsmith.wordpress.com/2011/01/09/an-old-article-i-wrote/ https://cdsmith.wordpress.com/2011/01/09/an-old-article-i-wr... It says: > I give the following general definitions for strong and weak typing, at least when used as absolutes: > Strong typing: A type system that I like and feel comfortable with > Weak typing: A type system that worries me, or makes me feel uncomfortable