3 ms·
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 def
by 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 agoIt'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 agoProgramming 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.