3 ms·
Some people - who do understand type systems - only think of static type systems as type systems. And in that regard they might look at "dynamically typed langa
by Dewie 12y ago
Some people - who do understand type systems - only think of static type systems as type systems. And in that regard they might look at "dynamically typed langauges" as having "weak type systems", since they are often just unityped (only have one type).
- mietek 12y agoUnfortunately, the words “strong” and “weak” often don’t mean anything more than: > 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 http://web.archive.org/web/20091227121956/http://www.pphsg.org/cdsmith/types.html http://web.archive.org/web/20091227121956/http://www.pphsg.o...
- Dewie 12y agoI agree to a degree, though some things are at least confined to a certain dimensions: like strong/weak typing. A continuum more than a binary distinction, but at least you can say things like "stronger" and "weaker" than something else. (Note that I wrote "weak type system", not "weak typing". "Weak" here is a just a generic adjective, and not meant to be precise.)