|
Re^2: Strong typing and Type Safety.A multilanguage approach
by nikosv (Deacon) on Nov 19, 2010 at 11:55 UTC
|
Maybe it looks disorganized because it is split into 2 parts and maybe you need to check
first part also to get the full picture.
But I don't get why you think that it is shallow.I would be most interested in hearing your opinion in more detail
Also it is not offensive towards Perl, in case you got offended, and furthermore helps people not initiated to Perl (especially to the visitors of the site hosting the article since it is a general programming site) get a view of how Perl works
| [reply] |
|
|
From your earlier part:
The main difference, roughly speaking, between a strongly typed language and a weakly typed one is that a weakly typed one makes
conversions between unrelated types implicitly, while a strongly typed one typically disallows implicit conversions between unrelated types.
You then imply, in Example 2 in the "Weak Typing in Perl" section, that using the numeric + operator
on a Perl string is "implicit" and therefore weakly typed. As chromatic once remarked:
What's implicit about using numeric operators on strings?
If you use string operators on strings, you get string behavior.
If you use numeric operators (which you must do explicitly), you get numeric behavior.
What isn't explicit about that?
Update: The same argument applies to your "Example 1" in that applying the Perl string concatentaion operator to a number is explicit. Perl is different (and superior IMHO) to many languages in that it does not overload + to mean both numeric addition and string concatenation.
| [reply]
[d/l]
[select] |
|
|
| [reply] |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Maybe it looks disorganized because it is split into 2 parts and maybe you need to check first part also to get the full picture.
Disorganized in the sense that it tries to follow some kind of mobile phone type formatting, where width is limited to 60 chars, table of contents is forbidden, and starts off written in the 3rd person. Its almost has a playboy article feel, but without the benefit of nude females.
But I don't get why you think that it is shallow.I would be most interested in hearing your opinion in more detail
Because it is not in depth; it doesn't deliver what it promises and borders on incoherent wishy-washy.
Based on the vocabulary its clearly written for experts
but its full of vague generalities and not the kind of details experts would need to be demystified.
A beginner would be very confused but impressed by the authors immense knowledge, and left in awe of the coolness of these things and the author for knowing them.
An in-between-er would also be impressed, but lose interest after trying to decipher the prose between the code.
An expert would breeze through this article and think about thanking the author for a laugh, then do his own research.
Also it is not offensive towards Perl...
Did not think it was offensive towards any programming language
| [reply] |
|
|
Disorganized in the sense that it tries to follow some kind of mobile phone type formatting
I have no control over the look of site
Its almost has a playboy article feel, but without the benefit of nude females.
you know best as you look experienced with those kind of sites ;)
Because it is not in depth; it doesn't deliver what it promises and borders on incoherent wishy-washy. Based on the vocabulary its clearly written for experts but its full of vague generalities and not the kind of details experts would need to be demystified.
theory is followed by code snippets to make the concepts clear.maybe you did not get it.please make your critic constructive by pointing out specific things to talk about and don't just say things just to say them
A beginner would be very confused but impressed by the authors immense knowledge, and left in awe of the coolness of these things and the author for knowing them.
I play no expert or the smarty one.I just display my findings after I have done my research.I don't have a particular target group
and to tell you truth, the phrase : No, we may not. It's complicated - and if you don't believe me try explaining this strange set of rules to a beginner was added by the editor;it is not my style
An expert would breeze through this article and think about thanking the author for a laugh, then do his own research.
Mike James who has been on the scene for a couple of decades, runs the site and VSJ magazine and has a couple of PhD's thinks that the article is very good.But you seem more qualified to judge since you have a degree in Astrophysics, work for NASA and have send a bot to Mars :-)
And as you seem to know what an expert would think, this automatically upgrades to you an expert and since you surely know all the things that are demonstrated in the article, after you complete your expert ,I am certain, research, please let me know of it. i will be glad to take a look at it
thanks for your opinion anyway
| [reply] |
|
|
|
|
|