|[22 earlier articles]|
|Re: Are these all really true ? email@example.com (Stefan Monnier) (1995-10-02)|
|Re: Are these all really true ? firstname.lastname@example.org (Scott Nicol) (1995-10-02)|
|Re: Are these all really true ? email@example.com (1995-10-02)|
|Re: Are these all really true ? firstname.lastname@example.org (1995-10-03)|
|Re: Are these all really true ? email@example.com (1995-10-16)|
|Re: Are these all really true ? firstname.lastname@example.org (1995-10-04)|
|Re: Are these all really true ? email@example.com (1995-10-11)|
|Re: Are these all really true ? firstname.lastname@example.org (1995-10-12)|
|From:||email@example.com (Matthias Blume)|
|Date:||Wed, 11 Oct 1995 19:05:05 GMT|
firstname.lastname@example.org (Anton Ertl) writes:
email@example.com (Ronald F. Guilmette) writes:
|> Gabriela de Vivo (UCV). <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
|> >* Strongly type language result in better programs.
I'll assume that "strongly typed" means "compile-time type-checked".
No, that's the distinction between static and dynamic typing. An
example for a statically, but weakly typed language is C. Examples
for dynamically, but strongly typed languages are Lisp, Prolog,
Smalltalk, various scripting languages, etc. Examples for statically
and strongly typed languages are Ada, SML, etc. I can't think of a
dynamically and weakly typed language right now.
Static typing essentially means that the entire behavior of programs
that are accepted by the type-checker (be it the compiler or the
runtime environment) can be entirely explained in the framework in
which the semantics of the language are defined.
Return to the
Search the comp.compilers archives again.