Getting started
James J. Besemer
jb at cascade-sys.com
Fri Sep 27 05:31:41 EDT 2002
Adam Taylor wrote:
>This sounds like the same thing as I said, or damn close. Am I
>missing something?
>
Not really. Just different emphasis.
>Yes. It seems to me that Table 1 in Cardelli:
>
> Typed Untyped
>Safe ML LISP
>Unsafe C Assembler
>
>Might be better like this:
>
> Statically typed Dynamically typed Untyped
>Safe ML LISP
>Unsafe C Assembler
>
>(Python would also be in the (Safe,Dynamically typed) position.)
>
>Although safety and strongly-checked are not the same thing, this
>table is also correct:
>
> Statically typed Dynamically typed Untyped
>Strongly checked ML LISP
>Weakly checked C Assembler
>
I agree. So where in this spacewould YOU put Python and Perl?
>>A literal reading furthermore defines "weakly typed" only in
>>terms of static checking.
>>
>>
>
>I don't understand what you mean by this. Cardelli never uses the
>term "weakly typed" himself, he only uses it that one time, to say
>that it's the term most people use for the concept that he prefers to
>call "weakly checked".
>
I was translating his internal vocabulary to use the term we started
with. He defines "weakly checked" only in terms of "static checking".
Since they're synonyms, this reference only supports a def of "weakly
typed" in terms of static checked languages. So I'm saying the
reference does not help us nearly as much as I would like.
>Or at
>least when people start talking about "strongly typed" vs "weakly
>typed" languages, that first thing to get straight is which axis
>they're talking about.
>
Fair enough.
--jb
--
James J. Besemer 503-280-0838 voice
2727 NE Skidmore St. 503-280-0375 fax
Portland, Oregon 97211-6557 mailto:jb at cascade-sys.com
http://cascade-sys.com
More information about the Python-list
mailing list