Re: What are OOP's Jargons and Complexities?

Tassilo v. Parseval wrote:

> Also sprach John W. Kennedy:
>
>> alex goldman wrote:
>>> John W. Kennedy wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>Strong typing has been a feature of mainstream programming languages
>>>>since the late 1950's.
>>>
>>> I'm just curious, what do you mean by /strong/ typing, and which
>>> strongly typed languages do you know?
>>
>> Unfortunately, I have seen the meaning shift with the context. In Ada
>> '83, it means it is not possible to have the equivalent of a C
>> unprototyped function, and that mixed-type expressions tend to need
>> explicit casting. In other contexts (as here), I've seen it used to mean
>> simply that variables have definite types, and it is not possible
>> (except by the use of polymorphic classes) for a variable to change from
>> an integer to a float to a character string in the course of execution.
>> In this sense, compile-to-machine-code languages (ee.g., Fortran, COBOL,
>> C, C++, or Pascal), are generally strongly typed
>
> These are statically typed. The extent to which they are also strongly
> typed differs: C++ is probably a little more strongly typed than C, but
> by and large their typing is still fairly weak.
>
> Most often, languages with strong typing can be found on the functional
> front (such as ML and Haskell). These languages have a dynamic typing
> system.

No, ML & Haskell are strongly and statically typed. Read this paper if
interested:

http://research.microsoft.com/Users/luca/Papers/TypeSystems.pdf
Received on Thu Sep 29 16:13:06 2005