|
|
|
|
|
|
by julian_1
3160 days ago
|
|
|
For another (type-theory) perspective - a 'dynamic language' can be automatically considered weakly typed if it can return an runtime exception due a failure to perform a runtime type coercion, or because the typesystem is not expressive enough to include a proof of totality. That makes the whole dynamic/static versus strong/weak distinction kind of meaningless. > The functional and imperative languages are weakly typed, i.e. the result of computing the value of an expression e of type T is one of the following: [...] http://wiki.portal.chalmers.se/agda/pmwiki.php?n=ReferenceMa... As a matter ordinary meaning, I also feel it makes sense to talk about more strongly typed languages, because they can express 'stronger' guarantees about behavior. Eg. a proof that the code cannot deadlock. |
|
|