|
|
|
|
|
by Jtsummers
1082 days ago
|
|
You already found the wikipedia page, try reading it. See where it puts a lot of dynamically typed languages under the category of "strongly typed". You've decided it's a good enough source apparently. But really, I used "strongly" in quotes deliberately. It's a terrible phrase since it means nothing in practice because it can mean too many things (as that same page notes) that often are at odds with each other. > Note that the definition refers to type declaration, both being optional in Python and Common Lisp, so I wouldn’t use either as an example of strongly type languages. Even this definition would potentially exclude SML and OCaml where types are inferred, not declared. So according to you those two languages are weakly typed? I think a lot of people would be surprised to learn that. |
|