Summary: strong/weak typing and pointers

[Carl Banks]

mike at hobbshouse.org (Michael Hobbs) wrote in message news:<10p1ud2juqlkb7c at corp.supernews.com>...
> JCM <joshway_without_spam at myway.com> wrote:
> > I think both liquids and gases are considered fluids.  Liquid Typing
> > and Gaseous Typing would be sub-categories.
> 
> I was thinking that "rigid" would be the antonym of "fluid".

You are correct, of course.  However, I don't like "rigid" as a term
to describe typing, for a simple reason: it's not specific enough.

Unlike solid, rigid can easily refer not only to substances, but also
to stances, or laws, or hierarchies, or guidelines, etc.  Rigid is
sometimes used as a synonym for strong (hopefully not by engineers). 
Because it has a very general meaning, "rigid typing" could be
construed as meaning a lot of different things.

OTOH, solid tends to refer specifically to substances.  It is the
metaphor to substances which, IMO, makes solid a good term for this
aspect of typing.  Solid substances don't deform under pressure;
likewise, solid typing systems to convert the types under pressure.

If someone hears the term "rigid typing", they could conceivably take
it to mean "static typing" or (my definition) "manifest typing".  But
if they hear "solid typing", then it's a stretch to take it to mean
"manifest typing" and a bigger stretch to take it to mean "static
typing".

On the opposite end, I think I actually would prefer "liquid" to
"fluid".  Fluid would be ok; unlike with rigid, there are no fluid
stances or fluid laws, although there are fluid guidelines.  Fluid
isn't as general in meaning as rigid is.  However, the word liquid
definitely stresses the metaphor with substances a lot better then the
word fluid does.


-- 
CARL BANKS