Re: Static/Strong/Implicit Typing

From: Pascal Costanza (costanza_at_web.de)
Date: 01/27/04 

Date: Tue, 27 Jan 2004 10:24:53 +0100

sajiimori wrote:

>>Erik Naggum observed that you can *already* consider CL
>>to be strongly, statically, implicitly typed, with everything
>>having type T.
>
> Still sounds like a joke. Implementing such a type system requires exactly
> 0 lines of code. Its requirements are necessarily met. It's like a type
> system that requires that objects are not of negative size.

...which means that the term "statically typed" doesn't mean anything
specific by itself. There are many variations out there what it means to
be statically typed. Hindley/Milner type systems come in numerous
flavors, and there doesn't seem to be an agreement what the right way is
for some of the more subtle issues.

So strictly speaking, you are not saying very much when you talk about
statically typed languages. You are only relying on a vague commonly
accepted set of typical representative languages.

Pascal 

-- 
Tyler: "How's that working out for you?"
Jack: "Great."
Tyler: "Keep it up, then."