Re^3: Strong typing and Type Safety.A multilanguage approach

Why do these terms exist otherwise if they serve no purpose?

Of course they have purposes, but that not does not speak to their utility in language analysis.

The purposes of these terms are many and varied. In my experience, their primary intended purpose is to form invalid arguments. (An invalid argument is an argument for which one cannot ascertain the truth of its conclusion.)

Comment on Re^3: Strong typing and Type Safety.A multilanguage approach

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^4: Strong typing and Type Safety.A multilanguage approach by nikosv (Deacon) on Nov 22, 2010 at 06:38 UTC
I see what you mean.On the other hand I find their purpose as a way of describing a notion. For example Wikipedia has this to say about Perl6 type system : "In Perl 6, the dynamic type system of Perl 5 has been augmented by the addition of static types" and "Perl 6 offers a hybrid typing system whereby the programmer may choose to use Static Typing, Dynamic Typing or mix the two" Looking at those sentences the terms dynamic, static and hybrid are mentioned to promptly describe a notion.I don't know if that could be done otherwise.Or for example what hides behind the term MMD.I think the arguing starts because this notion could be considered open to interpretation and not because of the terms themselves.For those reasons I think that terminology is needed	[reply]
Re^5: Strong typing and Type Safety.A multilanguage approach by ikegami (Patriarch) on Nov 22, 2010 at 08:20 UTC
I never said terminology wouldn't be useful. I'm saying the terminology simply doesn't exist at the moment. There are words, but there are no definitions to go with them. Or rather, there are too many definitions, yet none are ever particularly fitting because they assume black and white systems when they are rarely so. By the way, by just about every definition I've heard if not every definition I've heard, the first statement you quoted is written so poorly as to be false. Perl 5 has some static types.	[reply]
Re^6: Strong typing and Type Safety.A multilanguage approach by nikosv (Deacon) on Nov 22, 2010 at 08:41 UTC
By the way, by just about every definition I've heard if not every definition I've heard, the first statement you quoted is written so poorly as to be false. Perl 5 has some static types. yep,you are right	[reply]