[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

[Axiom-developer] RE: Static versus Dynamically typed (was: Philosophy..

From: Bill Page
Subject: [Axiom-developer] RE: Static versus Dynamically typed (was: Philosophy... )
Date: Fri, 23 Sep 2005 01:59:36 -0400

On September 23, 2005 1:38 AM I wrote:

> The C language is statically typed but not strong. Haskell and
> Ocaml are strongly static typed. I think SPAD and Aldor are also
> strong static typed languages. (However I am not so sure about
> the 'pretend' construct in these languages which looks something
> like a type-cast in C.) Languages like Python, Lisp, Maple and
> are dynamnically typed. I think that MuPad is also dynamically
> typed.

I should also mention that the issue of 'type' in languages (like
Spad and Aldor), where types are first-class objects (values), i.e.
can be computed dynamically and returned as results of functions,
considerably complicates the notion of "static" versus "dynamic".
However I think the adjective "strong" still clearly applies.


"From a technical point of perspective, Aldor is a type-complete,
strongly-typed, imperative programming language with a two-level
object model of categories and domains (similar to the concept of
interfaces and classes in Java). Types and functions are first
class entities allowing them to be constructed and manipulated
within Aldor programs just like any other value. Pervasive use of
dependent types allows static checking of dynamic objects and
provides object-oriented features such as parametric polymorphism."

Bill Page.

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]