3 ms·
freyrs3 didn't say that these languages were unsafe, he said that they were vacuously type safe. The kinds of safety you mentioned do not arise from (static) ty
by tel 12y ago
freyrs3 didn't say that these languages were unsafe, he said that they were vacuously type safe. The kinds of safety you mentioned do not arise from (static) typing and so, regardless of their validity, it's just not on topic.
- vinceguidry 12y agoHow could it not be on topic, when the article clearly said that a type system is that which programs written using it “cannot go wrong”? He then proceeded to use as examples C's lack of memory safety. With a definition that broad, you really need to examine every extant approach to solving the problem, even if you don't want to go in that direction.
- tel 12y agoHe starts with an intuition-bound definition then clarifies as time goes on. Ultimately "go wrong" needs to be embedded in the type system before it applies. Other things are obviously language safety features, but just are not "types" in the sense of how some languages are "type safe".