What are OOP's Jargons and Complexities?
in [Perl]
|
Prev: swift MT940 files
Next: Is there neq for strings?
From: John W. Kennedy on 23 May 2005 20:36 alex goldman wrote: > John W. Kennedy wrote: > > >>Strong >>typing has been a feature of mainstream programming languages since the >>late 1950's. > > > I'm just curious, what do you mean by /strong/ typing, and which strongly > typed languages do you know? Unfortunately, I have seen the meaning shift with the context. In Ada '83, it means it is not possible to have the equivalent of a C unprototyped function, and that mixed-type expressions tend to need explicit casting. In other contexts (as here), I've seen it used to mean simply that variables have definite types, and it is not possible (except by the use of polymorphic classes) for a variable to change from an integer to a float to a character string in the course of execution. In this sense, compile-to-machine-code languages (ee.g., Fortran, COBOL, C, C++, or Pascal), are generally strongly typed and interpreted languages (ee.g., shell scripts, Perl, REXX, APL, or LISP) are generally not. (In pure OO languages, such as SmallTalk or Ruby, the distinction may not really apply, since all variables are of the single type reference-to-root-class.) -- John W. Kennedy "The bright critics assembled in this volume will doubtless show, in their sophisticated and ingenious new ways, that, just as /Pooh/ is suffused with humanism, our humanism itself, at this late date, has become full of /Pooh./" -- Frederick Crews. "Postmodern Pooh", Preface
From: Wibble on 23 May 2005 20:36 Java or even C is more strongly typed than lisp or tcl which dont really have a concept of a typed variable. Lisp only does runtime type checking unless you do wierd unnatural things. I suppose ADA or Eiffel might have stronger typing than java, but I dont know those languages. I guess strong is relative. alex goldman wrote: > John W. Kennedy wrote: > > >>Strong >>typing has been a feature of mainstream programming languages since the >>late 1950's. > > > I'm just curious, what do you mean by /strong/ typing, and which strongly > typed languages do you know?
From: Mike Meyer on 23 May 2005 21:38 Jonathan Bartlett <johnnyb(a)eskimo.com> writes: > Mike Meyer wrote: > > "Xah Lee" <xah(a)xahlee.org> writes: > > So now we find out that Xah Lee is as ignorant of other programming > > languages as he is of Python and Perl. > > I think you're misreading some of what is being said. Given how clear Lee's writing is, that's certainly possible. I note that, while you disagree with my interpretation of what Lee said, you trimmed the text under discussion in *every* case. That sort of makes the discussion moot. I don't care enough about the subject to dig out his original quotes. I do stand by my interpretation of them as radically wrong, which is par for the course for Lee. If you really want to discuss these, please repost your comments, leaving Lee's text in place. > > Function nesting and classes were viewed as independent > > features. Some OO languages support nesting, others don't. I think > > it was Grace Murray > > Hopper commenting on Ada who said that "With classes, nesting is for the > > birds." > Doesn't this quote show the opposite? I don't think so. I had originally written a comment to the effect that early OO languages seemed to include it or not, with no apparent rhyme or reason. The GMH quote was meant to show that nesting - or lack of it - was pretty much irrelevant. I left out the intervening text. My bad. <mike -- Mike Meyer <mwm(a)mired.org> http://www.mired.org/home/mwm/ Independent WWW/Perforce/FreeBSD/Unix consultant, email for more information.
From: alex goldman on 24 May 2005 01:34 John W. Kennedy wrote: > Strong > typing has been a feature of mainstream programming languages since the > late 1950's. Is Fortran a strongly typed language? I don't think so. Strong typing has been invented in the 70's, if I'm not mistaken, when ML was invented, but strong typing has never been mainstream.
From: Tassilo v. Parseval on 24 May 2005 03:16
Also sprach John W. Kennedy: > alex goldman wrote: >> John W. Kennedy wrote: >> >> >>>Strong typing has been a feature of mainstream programming languages >>>since the late 1950's. >> >> I'm just curious, what do you mean by /strong/ typing, and which strongly >> typed languages do you know? > > Unfortunately, I have seen the meaning shift with the context. In Ada > '83, it means it is not possible to have the equivalent of a C > unprototyped function, and that mixed-type expressions tend to need > explicit casting. In other contexts (as here), I've seen it used to mean > simply that variables have definite types, and it is not possible > (except by the use of polymorphic classes) for a variable to change from > an integer to a float to a character string in the course of execution. > In this sense, compile-to-machine-code languages (ee.g., Fortran, COBOL, > C, C++, or Pascal), are generally strongly typed These are statically typed. The extent to which they are also strongly typed differs: C++ is probably a little more strongly typed than C, but by and large their typing is still fairly weak. Most often, languages with strong typing can be found on the functional front (such as ML and Haskell). These languages have a dynamic typing system. I haven't yet come across a language that is both statically and strongly typed, in the strictest sense of the words. I wonder whether such a language would be usable at all. Tassilo -- use bigint; $n=71423350343770280161397026330337371139054411854220053437565440; $m=-8,;;$_=$n&(0xff)<<$m,,$_>>=$m,,print+chr,,while(($m+=8)<=200); |