3 ms·

'So what is "strong typing"? This appears to be a meaningless phrase, and people often use it in a nonsensical fashion. To some it seems to mean "The language h

by igouy 12y ago

'So what is "strong typing"? This appears to be a meaningless phrase, and people often use it in a nonsensical fashion. To some it seems to mean "The language has a type checker". To others it means "The language is sound" (that is, the type checker and run-time system are related). To most, it just seems to mean, "A language like Pascal, C or Java, related in a way I can't quite make precise". If someone uses this phrase, be sure to ask them to define it for you. (For amusement, watch them squirm.)' page 263 "Programming Languages: Application and Interpretation" Shriram Krishnamurthi 2003

imanaccount247 12y ago
Is that an opinion you share with the author and you are referencing a really poor book in an attempt at an argument from authority? Strongly typed is well defined, even when a Racket enthusiast dishonestly tries to pretend otherwise in his Racket marketing book. That nonsense was removed from the book was it not? The term was defined by Barbara Liskov in 1974: "whenever an object is passed from a calling function to a called function, its type must be compatible with the type declared in the called function". Very clear, very simple, no nonsensical or meaningless problems at all.
- igouy 12y ago
  It's no longer 1974. Type safety is discussed in "Types and Programming Languages" http://books.google.com/books?id=ti6zoAC9Ph8C http://books.google.com/books?id=ti6zoAC9Ph8C "Strongly typed" is not.
  - igouy 12y ago
    Programming and Programming Languages Tuesday, Version: December 2nd, 2014 http://papl.cs.brown.edu/2014/index.html http://papl.cs.brown.edu/2014/index.html 17.5 Types Versus Safety If you have ever used the phrases “strong typing” or “weak typing”, define them. That’s what I thought. But thank you for playing. Indeed, the phrases are not only poorly defined, they are also wrong, because the problem is not with the “strength” of the type checker but rather with the nature of the run-time system that backs them.

by igouy 12y ago

imanaccount247 12y ago

Is that an opinion you share with the author and you are referencing a really poor book in an attempt at an argument from authority? Strongly typed is well defined, even when a Racket enthusiast dishonestly tries to pretend otherwise in his Racket marketing book. That nonsense was removed from the book was it not? The term was defined by Barbara Liskov in 1974: "whenever an object is passed from a calling function to a called function, its type must be compatible with the type declared in the called function". Very clear, very simple, no nonsensical or meaningless problems at all.

igouy 12y ago
It's no longer 1974. Type safety is discussed in "Types and Programming Languages" http://books.google.com/books?id=ti6zoAC9Ph8C http://books.google.com/books?id=ti6zoAC9Ph8C "Strongly typed" is not.
- igouy 12y ago
  Programming and Programming Languages Tuesday, Version: December 2nd, 2014 http://papl.cs.brown.edu/2014/index.html http://papl.cs.brown.edu/2014/index.html 17.5 Types Versus Safety If you have ever used the phrases “strong typing” or “weak typing”, define them. That’s what I thought. But thank you for playing. Indeed, the phrases are not only poorly defined, they are also wrong, because the problem is not with the “strength” of the type checker but rather with the nature of the run-time system that backs them.