Python from Wise Guy's Viewpoint

[Matthias Blume]

Nikodemus Siivola <demoss at random-state.net> writes:

> In comp.lang.lisp Matthias Blume <find at my.address.elsewhere> wrote:
> 
> Apologies for the out-of-context snippage:
> 
> > A 100,000 line program in an untyped language is useless to me if I am
>                                ^^^^^^^
> 
> Your choice of word here makes me suspect that you _may_ understand
> something quite different than most of the residents of cll and clp by
> dynamic typing:
> 
>  dynamic typing is *not* the same as untyped!

Ah, are we quibbling about *that* again?   Words, words, words...

If you want to know how much I know about the difference between typed
and untyped (or "statically typed" vs. "dynamically typed" as you
prefer), look up my track record on implementing languages in either
part of the PL world.

Yes, "dynamically typed" programs are "typed", but the word "type"
here means something quite different from what it means when it is
used with the qualifier "static".  I prefer the latter use, and from
that point of view there is only one (static) type in dynamically
typed programs, hence my use of the word "untyped".  (If you have only
one (static) type, you might as well not even think about that fact.)

Anyway, unfortunate or not, we are both thinking about the same class
of languages.  That shall suffice.

Matthias

PS: When I say "untyped" I mean it as in "the _untyped_ lambda
calculus".