Linked by Thom Holwerda on Mon 14th Jan 2013 23:15 UTC, submitted by MOS6510
General Development "Programming languages are living phenomena: They're born, the lucky ones that don't die in infancy live sometimes long, fruitful lives, and then inevitably enter a period of decline. Unlike real life, the decline can last many, many years as the presence of large legacy codebases means practiced hands must tend the code for decades. The more popular the language once was, the longer this period of decline will be."
Permalink for comment 549115
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[8]: Comment by RareBreed
by ndrw on Thu 17th Jan 2013 02:15 UTC in reply to "RE[7]: Comment by RareBreed"
Member since:

No generalizations are valid. Especially when there are whole groups of people thinking otherwise (here: for very concrete reasons prefer weak typing to strong typing in nearly all cases).

Strong typing works extremely well with abstract single-function objects (a number, a string, a list, a set) and fails *badly* at any attempt of modeling real objects. In a way, you have admitted that yourself - a "cat" from my example would be an "Object" type, distinguished only by its fields, not the type.

Strong typing implies enforcement, otherwise it wouldn't be "strong". Preferably at compile time, and at least at runtime, although many advocates of strong typing would disagree with that. The problem with your example is that Python doesn't even enforce types at runtime - a "type" (class) is just a method of reusing implementation. At runtime the interpreter is only interested whether the field/method you're accessing is defined or not - something that may and does change at any the time.

Reply Parent Score: 2