Version française
Home     About     Download     Resources     Contact us    
Browse thread
Scripting in ocaml
[ Home ] [ Index: by date | by threads ]
[ Search: ]

[ Message by date: previous | next ] [ Message in thread: previous | next ] [ Thread: previous | next ]
Date: -- (:)
From: Tom <tom.primozic@g...>
Subject: Re: strong/weak typing terminology (was Re: [Caml-list] Scripting in ocaml)
>
>
> Later he gives the following chart
>
>         |Statically checked       | Dynamically checked
> -------------------------------------------------
> safe   | ML, Haskell, Java, etc. | Lisp, Scheme, Perl, Postscript, etc
> unsafe | C, C++, etc.            |
>
>
But this chart is not expressive enough... I believe that the properties
implied by "weak/strong" refer to the ability (or the disability) of the
compiler/runtime (or rather semantics of the language) to change types at
will (actually, whenever this seems useful, in cases such as "string" + 7 or
"9" - "3").

This category would include C and C++ (implicit conversions of numbers) and
certainly dynamically checked languages such as php, javascript, (probably
also) Ruby, Python, ...

I believe that these languages need to be distinguished.

- Tom