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 549119
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[8]: Comment by RareBreed
by kwan_e on Thu 17th Jan 2013 03:07 UTC in reply to "RE[7]: Comment by RareBreed"
Member since:

If anything, complex models dictate strong typing.

If we go meta and take a look at this whole conversation (which has gone on since the invention of those terms...

The fact that you can categorize something as strong or weak typing, but differentiate it from compile-time or run-time typing, and differentiate it from static and dynamic typing, and the conflation with OO, says something about the inherent flaws of any kind of language typing.

Really the conversation should be about:

Strong, compile-time, static typing vs
Strong, compile-time, dynamic typing vs
Strong, run-time, static typing vs
Strong, run-time, dynamic typing vs
Weak, compile-time, static typing vs
Weak, compile-time, dynamic typing vs
Weak, run-time, static typing vs
Weak, run-time, dynamic typing.

Reply Parent Score: 2