Re: Questions about Common Lisp
- From: George Neuner <gneuner2@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sun, 22 Mar 2009 23:04:17 -0400
On Fri, 20 Mar 2009 20:33:19 -0700, stephen@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (Stephen
J. Bevan) wrote:
George Neuner <gneuner2@xxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
The term "dynamically typed" is meaningless. but it is frequently used
as a lay synonym for "latently typed".
Indeed but then is the "typed" in "latently typed" really any more
meaningful than when it appears in "dynamically typed"?
Yes. It means the types are not manifest in the source but are known
implicitly from and carried by the data ("carried by" meaning data is
tagged - languages with manifest types may also tag data). Both
manifest and latent typing can be analyzed statically.
"dynamic typing" is meaningless because it implies that types are
fluid and may change. While this can actually happen in Lisp because
object classes can be redefined at runtime, that facility is not used
by the vast majority of programs.
Either "type" means something related to type theory or it doesn't.
"type" in all of these terms - even the lay terms - always means
something wrt type theory. Languages are classified by whether their
type systems are strong or weak, manifest or latent.
If it does then how, when to all apparances such languages are untyped?
As I learned it, an "untyped" language is one in which data exists
only as raw words - ie. bits - and operators determine how their
operands are used.
If it does not, then using the term surely muddied the waters given
the existing meaning of the word which applies perfectly well to
programming langauges and which dates back to before there were any
stored program computers.
I agree that existing terminology should be used whenever possible ...
but that just isn't the way things happen.
George
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Questions about Common Lisp
- From: Stephen J. Bevan
- Re: Questions about Common Lisp
- References:
- Re: Questions about Common Lisp
- From: Elena
- Re: Questions about Common Lisp
- From: Pascal J. Bourguignon
- Re: Questions about Common Lisp
- From: Pascal Costanza
- Re: Questions about Common Lisp
- From: Sam TH
- Re: Questions about Common Lisp
- From: Pascal J. Bourguignon
- Re: Questions about Common Lisp
- From: Sam TH
- Re: Questions about Common Lisp
- From: Ray Dillinger
- Re: Questions about Common Lisp
- From: Stephen J. Bevan
- Re: Questions about Common Lisp
- From: George Neuner
- Re: Questions about Common Lisp
- From: Stephen J. Bevan
- Re: Questions about Common Lisp
- Prev by Date: Re: Questions about Common Lisp
- Next by Date: Re: Questions about Common Lisp
- Previous by thread: Re: Questions about Common Lisp
- Next by thread: Re: Questions about Common Lisp
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|