Re: On definition of static vs. dynamic typing
"Matthias Kaeppler" <void@xxxxxxxx> wrote in message
Peter Ammon wrote:
"A language is called statically typed, if it does not use dynamic type
No. A language is statically typed if the types are known at compile
time. A language can be statically typed and yet not use any type
Can you provide an example of a statically typed language which doesn't
perform any type checking?
I'm developping a language which only has 1 type, and so it in the
definition provided earlier in this thread, this language would be
"statically type" and it does not perform type checking (since I already
know what the type of all expressions will be anyway).
- Re: Heartbleed
... new system and have only to bootstrap FORTH with those few primitives. ... Thus obtaining a compiler which runs on the new system. ... LISP is the ultimate high-level language, and features from LISP are being added every ... How do you compile a function which does anything except call other functions ...
- Re: GMP vs. straight C arithmetic
... ordinary data structures that don't impose an additonal performance ... Side-effects are another crucial part of the language. ... > Take the tree structure example I gave earlier. ... determined at compile time, is this a compile time error? ...
- Resolved: NOT. --WAS: Re: Static vs. Dynamic typing (big advantage or not)---WAS: c.programming:OO
... I certainly want more errors detected at compile time, ... > advocate reaching that goal through beefier type systems. ... in a procedural language, or in an object based language. ... Relativistic mechanics - solves the transaction thing, ...
- Re: Teach myself C++.
... That seems to be an objection to the quality of implementation of ... The language IS the compilers. ... should be possible to compile some code more than once, ... I'd say that string handling is something most other languages get ...
- Re: censored by comp.compilers [was please suggest an OS and language a text]
... It's only when I speak to people who think UNIX and Windows ... or year or a whole career accomplishing nothing but mediocrity. ... the language design is arguably less elegant, but partly because the language wasn't aiming to be "simple" or "elegant", but rather to try to look and act more like traditional "industrial strength" languages. ... this is mostly related to the hassle of having to compile the C frontend's ASTs into the current bytecode, and deal somehow with the issue of "the mountain of crud pulled in from the headers", which given the current VM design would be a bit problematic. ...