🚀 go-pugleaf

Perhaps a side issue but my cents on the use and misuse of techical term.

Alan L. Lovejoy wrote:
> 
> Doug Bell wrote:
> (with parts where substantial agreement has been reached left out)
>> [...]
>
[lots of probably true stuff deleted]

[attempt at defininf typing partially deleted]
> The correct definition of "strong typing" is that type errors are prevented
> from occuring.  An example of a type error would be applying the integer
> addition machine instruction to a 32-bit floating point value, and then
> using the result as though it meant something.
>
> Smalltalk, LISP and Java are all strongly typed.  Only Java is also statically
> typed. Type errors can occur in both C and C++, so they are statically
> but not strongly typed.

We have been reading different books. My book (Eliis Horowitz: Fundamentals of 
Programming Languages, Springer Verlag, 1984) says (quote, p.38.) 

"A language is said to be *strongly  typed* if the type of all expressions is known at compile-time". 

Hence Smalltalk and LISP are *not* strongly typed.

Perhaps you would like to refer to your source?

> Whether static typing is good or not is another religious issue that
> I will refrain from addressing.

Agree.

[cut}]
> 
> --Alan

-- 
Robin Rosenberg,  | Voice: +46-8-7036200 | OO consulting, education
Enator Objective  | Fax:   +46-8-7036283 | and mentoring since
 Management AB    | Mail:  rrg@funsys.se | 1985.
"Any opinions above are my own, etc. etc."