*thinks real hard about this*
So, if I'm understanding what you're saying and all the links that have been provided ... we could arrive at the following definitions:
So, in your example, the operation '+' isn't defined for the value "dog". However, let's say we had the operation '_' (string concatenation). It would be defined for "dog" ... it could also be defined for "3.14". So, the statement 3.14 _ "dog" could have meaning ... right?
I do understand what all the fuss is about re: types ... having a strong type system would eliminate whole classes of bugs, in the way that automatic memory management has eliminated a whole class of bugs. Arguably, it is the Lazier solution to do this. And, I think that some of the people on the lambda site are correct in saying that it's a sociological issue, not a technical one ... sort of.
I think I need to think on this topic some more ...
Being right, does not endow the right to be rude; politeness costs nothing.
Being unknowing, is not the same as being stupid.
Expressing a contrary opinion, whether to the individual or the group, is more often a sign of deeper thought than of cantankerous belligerence.
Do not mistake your goals as the only goals; your opinion as the only opinion; your confidence as correctness. Saying you know better is not the same as explaining you know better.
In reply to Re^4: "strong typing" is potentially ambiguous
by dragonchild
in thread (Completely OT) - Hero(i)n programming language on Slashdot
by dragonchild
| For: | Use: | ||
| & | & | ||
| < | < | ||
| > | > | ||
| [ | [ | ||
| ] | ] |