Re:If You're Not Writing a Program, Don't Use a Programming ...
by Jweb_Guru on Monday September 24, 2018 @05:13PM
(#18061514)
> Distinction between dynamically typed and statistically typed is clear.
Not so clear as you might think. For example, it's relatively easy to construct a typed version of the untyped lambda calculus using isorecursive types.
Re:If You're Not Writing a Program, Don't Use a Programming ...
by nabla9 on Monday September 24, 2018 @05:18PM
(#18061544)
That's completely abstract example, not relevant to actual practice.
It's hard for actual programmer make that mistake.
Re:If You're Not Writing a Program, Don't Use a Programming ...
by Jweb_Guru on Monday September 24, 2018 @05:28PM
(#18061616)
It's a concrete example, but I understand your point that "in practice" we know what dynamic vs. static typing means. Personally, I think a lot of that just comes down to marketing, though :)
* Distinction between dynamically typed and statistically typed is clear.
* Weak versus strong typing has less clear definition. Usually weakly typed means many implicit conversions between data types and representation.
Most programmers like the late binding approach. That is easy to do with dynamic typing. Adding static typing or type inference for late binding is more difficult.
Programmers usually hate the "weak" typing aspects of their dynamically typed languages when they are chosen wrong. JavaScript is good example of choosing implicit type conversions in a way that leads to confusion.