News for hackers. Stuff that matters.

A comment on Why OO Sucks. Parent comment

Re:Why OO Sucks by schtog on Tuesday February 10, 2009 @09:32AM (#475173)
how is Lisp/Scheme weakly typed? It is dynamically typed and strongly too(even though the strong/weak typing definition isn't exactly clear).
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Why OO Sucks by visitor4rmindia on Tuesday February 10, 2009 @10:03AM (#475213)
I'm sorry. You're right - that was a slip-up. I meant a non-static (dynamic) typed language.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Why OO Sucks by ricky_clarkson on Tuesday February 10, 2009 @10:08AM (#475222)
Lisp/Scheme are untyped.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Why OO Sucks by Hexstream on Tuesday February 10, 2009 @11:50AM (#475430)
No, they're duck-typed. Types are attached to values, not variables, and for example trying to eval (+ 1 "hi") will throw a proper type exception.

You usually don't have to declare types but for example in Common Lisp you can optionally declare types for better performance in speed-critical parts of the code.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Why OO Sucks by ricky_clarkson on Wednesday February 11, 2009 @06:22AM (#476868)
They're an implementation of the untyped lambda calculus. What you're thinking of are better named tags, not types.
[ Parent | on HN ]