Browse thread
Scripting in ocaml
[
Home
]
[ Index:
by date
|
by threads
]
[ Message by date: previous | next ] [ Message in thread: previous | next ] [ Thread: previous | next ]
[ Message by date: previous | next ] [ Message in thread: previous | next ] [ Thread: previous | next ]
Date: | 2006-12-22 (16:51) |
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