Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by teddyh 1248 days ago
> When type system people talk about types they're implicitly talking about static types, rather than what Python might call a type. Robert Harper lays out the argument [0] that Python is basically a statically typed language with many "classes" but a single type - that's where I was first exposed to this idea.

According to this, there are no such things as "dynamically typed” langugages, only “unityped” ones. I stand by my claim that the former is a normal accepted term, while the latter is niche at best.
1 comments
still_grokking 1247 days ago
> According to this, there are no such things as "dynamically typed” langugages, only “unityped” ones.

Bingo.

That's exactly what Harper said.

Did you actually read that thing?

link
teddyh 1247 days ago
It doesn’t actually matter what that thing said. Most everybody uses the term “dynamically typed” when referring to languages like Python, Lisp, etc. and this is the first time I’ve heard the term “unityped” – is not a term in common use.

And (bringing this back to its origin), using terms which actually are in common use, Python does allow storing types as values in variables.

link
still_grokking 1246 days ago
> is not a term in common use

That's the fun thing about it. But in some circles everybody knows this term. ;-) (You can see it as an "in joke", if you like).

> Python does allow storing types as values in variables.

Python does not have "types" in the CS sense (besides the one all mighty uni-type, of course).

All you can store in variables in Python are values. (Before arguing further please look up type theory first, so we can avoid going in circles).

link