🚀 go-pugleaf

Wolfgang Grieskamp writes:
> C++ is "strongly typed" with dynamic binding (according to
> "virtuals"), since the error "message not understood" is not part of
> the languages operational semantics.

If C++ is strongly typed because of the lack of this error, then so is
machine language.  I'm not sure I see the point of calling this
property "strongly typed".

My own definition of "strongly typed" was that the language will not
return a result for applying a function to values which are outside
its domain.  Note that except for trivial cases you most definitely
can get "domain errors" (or "message not understood") at runtime.

Now, I understand that classic works have claimed that a type error is
a value which puts the program in an infinite loop.  However, I would
say that a language where this happens is weakly typed.  In fact, I
think that from this point of view, a "strongly typed" language is one
which only allows finite looping constructs, and which guarantees a
well-behaved "run-time error" whenever a partial function is applied
incorrectly (or maybe we should call this "absolutely typed"?).

Raul Rockwell