Re^10: Interesting read: "Why I use perl and still hate dynamic language weenies too"

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^11: Interesting read: "Why I use perl and still hate dynamic language weenies too" by ikegami (Patriarch) on Apr 17, 2007 at 19:26 UTC
I confused Static vs Dynamic typing with Weak vs Strong typing in my earlier post. To answer your question, some elements of Perl are statically typed, and some elements of Perl are dynamically typed. The question "Is X strongly typed?" is the invalid one. This post by Dominus includes "eight different and incompatible definitions of 'strongly typed language'" he found.	[reply]
Re^12: Interesting read: "Why I use perl and still hate dynamic language weenies too" by dewey (Pilgrim) on Apr 17, 2007 at 19:51 UTC
Wow. OK, thanks for the links. I guess it becomes very hard to discuss anything on this thread if we don't even actually have an agreed-upon definition for strong/weak/static/dynamic typing... ~dewey	[reply]
Re^11: Interesting read: "Why I use perl and still hate dynamic language weenies too" by ikegami (Patriarch) on Apr 17, 2007 at 19:02 UTC
~~Depending on the definition of "statically typed" to which you subscribe, the answer is "yes", "no" or "yes and no". "Is X statically typed?" is never the right question.~~ ~~I wish I could find the document I once encountered. It had at least 10 different definitions for "statically typed language".~~ ( See Re^11: Interesting read: "Why I use perl and still hate dynamic language weenies too" )	[reply]