Linked by Thom Holwerda on Mon 14th Jan 2013 23:15 UTC, submitted by MOS6510
Permalink for comment 549291
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Features
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/20/13 11:29 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/18/13 21:33 UTC
Linked by David Adams on 05/16/13 4:23 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/11/13 21:41 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/08/13 14:22 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/02/13 15:28 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 04/29/13 21:06 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 04/24/13 22:24 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 04/18/13 11:21 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 04/16/13 9:29 UTC
More Features »
Sponsored Links



Member since:
2009-06-30
Easy enough to check:
"Weak typing is not really a fair description of what's going on in Python."
Which is fair given that Python uses types for implementation reuse and error reporting. This of course doesn't stop me from adding a method "bark()" to an existing class "cat".
It also says that Lisp is strongly typed (a language specifically designed for making all non-primitive values untyped). The reason they give is that it doesn't do type coercion, which is IMHO a stupid way of defining "strong typing". But I will accept that, so if you wish, we may end the discussion here.
data FurType = Short | Long | Medium
data Color = Black | Orange | White | Tabby | ...
data Cat = Cat { hungry :: Bool, fur :: FurType, color :: Color, ... }
mycat = Cat True Short Black ...
Interesting (really!). But note that Haskell's type system is definitely not what people would call "most type systems".
And even Haskell can't make a "cat" object sometimes hungry, sometimes not. (True, this goes deeper than the type system in Haskell).