Re^8: "strong typing" is potentially ambiguous

There is a good definition of what a type system is. As I noted earilier in the thread, a type system limits the operations you can perform on a given peice of data (this definition is a bit informal, but will do for now). Further, type systems come out of formal logic, and predate CS.

From that, the definition of "strong type system" comes quite naturally. If you can perform operations that the type system should have forbid, it's a weak type system. Otherwise, it's strong.

"There is no shame in being self-taught, only in not trying to learn in the first place." -- Atrus, Myst: The Book of D'ni.

Comment on Re^8: "strong typing" is potentially ambiguous

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^9: "strong typing" is potentially ambiguous by jdporter (Paladin) on Dec 15, 2004 at 16:25 UTC
If it's so natural, then why is there so much disagreement? Your definition sounds reasonable... but then, so do most of the other seven MJD cites. Unless and until the world agrees on a definition of "strong typing", any discussions revolving around the phrase are destined to devolve into conflagration.	[reply]
Re^10: "strong typing" is potentially ambiguous by hardburn (Abbot) on Dec 15, 2004 at 16:28 UTC
then why is there so much disagreement? Because modern Comp Sci programs are designed to churn out assembly-line programmers? He said many of the definitions listed came out of class notes, which I generally consider untrustworthy. "There is no shame in being self-taught, only in not trying to learn in the first place." -- Atrus, Myst: The Book of D'ni.	[reply]