> I think the author goes a little too far to claim that "strong" > "weak" are meaningless terms when it comes to type systems
I can live with that, actually. The important language classifications are more along the lines of static vs. dynamic typing, procedural vs. functional, no objects vs. object based vs. true OO. That probably starts another flame war, but this thread is already running around with its hair on fire. I still say that object-based is a distinct and meaningful subset of object-oriented programming. The former can be implemented elegantly in a wide range of languages without much in the way of specific language support, the latter needs to designed into the language to allow a modicum of polymorhpic readability. It's an important distinction, because a project that is constrained to C should (IMHO) target an object-based design pattern but not an object-oriented one. That said, I'm open to disputation-by-example on this point, provided the example is reasonably small and pretty. (If the only polymorphic C code is ugly and non-small, it sort of proves my point). -- https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
