Getting started

James J. Besemer jb at
Fri Sep 27 11:31:41 CEST 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.  



James J. Besemer		503-280-0838 voice
2727 NE Skidmore St.		503-280-0375 fax
Portland, Oregon 97211-6557	mailto:jb at	

More information about the Python-list mailing list