Aahz <aa**@pythoncraft.com> wrote:
Unfortunately, Bruce Eckel has been perpetuating that terminology. I'm
in the process of writing a rebuttal.
http://www.artima.com/intv/typing.html
In this it sounds as though Mr. Eckel is coming around to the right view.
In the first part he seems to be using "latent", and only says at one
point "...latent typing, sometimes called weak typing...". And he
repeatedly uses the phrase "strong static type checking" for what is
supposed to be the strength of C++ and Java, and notes that "Strong
static type checking forces the programmer to do a lot of extra work."
So I get the impression that he is making that journey of discovery
that we know so well. Or, anyway, I know it - maybe you didn't go
through the same wringer that made B&D static type checking seem like a
pretty good idea in contrast to what came before? I used to think C++
was the best thing since the symbolic assembler, or maybe object [code]
linking...
I don't know that I care much for "latent typing", although it has a
certain attraction. If nothing else, it's shorter than "strong dynamic
typing", the first word of which seems necessary these days. :-(
But whether or not Mr. Eckel is still contributing to it, I can attest
that there is a general confusion about this among programmers, perhaps
especially java programmers. Just the other day I whacked one upside
the head (virtually; we were chatting on IRC) with the distinction
between "strong" and "static" typing and had the pleasure of watching
his eyes light up. Well, I imagine they lit up. But that was only
one, so if you'd get cracking on that paper... :-)
--
Passport brilliantly combines the kludgey and unstable nature of NIS+
with the insecurity of the trusted hosts concept to produce
a nine-step process with obvious opportunities for
security and other abuses. -- Paul Murphy
