On 3 August 2013 20:53, kilon wrote:
> btc wrote
>> btc@
>
>> wrote:
>>
>> Kilon, I agree with most of you writeup, except that I think Smalltalk
>> has types - except the types are not associated with variables, rather
>> they are associated with objects. This aligns with Igor's comment "in
>>
Hi Ben,
Even if you adopt a type system or definition as part of Smalltalk, it
is not coherent nor intuitive with the system usage. Types are not
identifiable in Smalltalk, they belong to other systems semantics (both
formal and informal) and probably scientific corpus. Because of that,
you ar
btc wrote
> btc@
> wrote:
>
> Kilon, I agree with most of you writeup, except that I think Smalltalk
> has types - except the types are not associated with variables, rather
> they are associated with objects. This aligns with Igor's comment "in
> smalltalk, assignment is not copying value,
b...@openinworld.com wrote:
greetings all,
I'm in the final weeks of writing up my Masters dissertation and
seeking some scholarly references to Smalltalk being "Strongly Typed."
I my review of Smalltalk I was surprised to find that [1] describes
Smalltalk as Strongly Typed, since Smalltalk
The term "strongly typed" is ambiguos and this thread is the living proof
of that.
In the introduction of
http://lucacardelli.name/Papers/OnUnderstanding.A4.pdf Luca Cardelli talks
about untyped universes and later about Smalltalk.
For me Smalltalk is a dynamically typed language with implicit ty
BTW, I especially like the idea that Smalltalk is Multityped, as an object can
respond to several protocols/interfaces/type specs. So true!
Quoting "Carla F. Griggio" :
> Well, I've always defined a type as the a set of values and the operations
> you can do with them. For example, the set o
I fully agree with you. Just a detail. "strongly typed" or "weakly typed" is
not ambiguous. Weakly typed means that the system can not guarantee that the
types are known and behavior is consistent with them. The main example is C,
where a pointer can point to anything, and often there is no ty
"
Smalltalk has types: a set of objects and the messages they understand"
Nope thats not what a type is. A type is a category of data.
Its that simple. Your set of objects and the messages they understand can do
thousands of things. Emulating types is one of those things.
Also what happens in
Well, I've always defined a type as the a set of values and the operations
you can do with them. For example, the set of values { 1, 2, 3, 4, ... }
and the operations { + , - , * , ... } would be the type Integer. With that
in mind, *Smalltalk has types: a set of objects and the messages they
under
That is correct, there are no types in Smalltalk.
Cheers,
Hernán
El 02/08/2013 15:55, Igor Stasenko escribió:
I wonder if 'types' can be applied to smalltalk at all.
Saying it is 'unityped' language (since everything is an object) is
same as saying it has no types.
Because where you need types
Hi Ben,
Thanks for the references, I've also found this post interesting:
http://blogs.perl.org/users/ovid/2010/08/what-to-know-before-debating-type-systems.html
Cheers
Alain
On 2 août 2013, at 06:03, b...@openinworld.com wrote:
> greetings all,
>
> I'm in the final weeks of writing up my Maste
Hello
If people ask me about Smalltalk I soon refer to the term duck typing. It
perfectly fits.
Enno
On 02.08.2013, at 20:55, Igor Stasenko wrote:
> I wonder if 'types' can be applied to smalltalk at all.
> Saying it is 'unityped' language (since everything is an object) is
> same as saying
I wonder if 'types' can be applied to smalltalk at all.
Saying it is 'unityped' language (since everything is an object) is
same as saying it has no types.
Because where you need types? When you want to manipulate with data,
but in smalltalk all
data manipulation semantics is provided and implemen
I dont see the reason for the confusion.
Static typed language is a language that defines the type of the variable at
the creating of the variable.
Strongly typed language is a language that wont automatically convert the
type of a variable if the correct type is not used.
Dynamic typed langu
On 2 août 2013, at 15:47, Esteban Lorenzano wrote:
>
> On Aug 2, 2013, at 3:39 PM, Camille Teruel wrote:
>
>> Just a citation:
>>
>> “I spent a few weeks ... trying to sort out the terminology of ‘strongly
>> typed’,
>> ‘statically typed’, ‘safe’, etc., and found it amazingly difficult ...
On Aug 2, 2013, at 3:39 PM, Camille Teruel wrote:
> Just a citation:
>
> “I spent a few weeks ... trying to sort out the terminology of ‘strongly
> typed’,
> ‘statically typed’, ‘safe’, etc., and found it amazingly difficult ... The
> usage of these
> terms is so various as to render them a
On 2 August 2013 15:27, Milan Mimica wrote:
> On 2 August 2013 06:03, wrote:
>>
>>
>> "A strongly typed language prevents any operation on the wrong type of
>> data. In weakly typed languages there are ways to escape this restriction:
>> type conversions"
>>
>> meaning that getting a MNU is a for
Just a citation:
“I spent a few weeks ... trying to sort out the terminology of ‘strongly
typed’,
‘statically typed’, ‘safe’, etc., and found it amazingly difficult ... The usage
of these
terms is so various as to render them almost useless.”
-- Benjamin C. Pierce
If you use one of these term
On 2 August 2013 06:03, wrote:
>
> "A strongly typed language *prevents* any operation on the wrong type of
> data. In weakly typed languages there are ways to escape this restriction:
> type conversions"
>
> meaning that getting a MNU is a form of Strong Typing since you can't make
> a Smalltalk
On 2 August 2013 06:03, wrote:
> greetings all,
>
> I'm in the final weeks of writing up my Masters dissertation and seeking
> some scholarly references to Smalltalk being "Strongly Typed."
>
> I my review of Smalltalk I was surprised to find that [1] describes
> Smalltalk as Strongly Typed, sinc
greetings all,
I'm in the final weeks of writing up my Masters dissertation and seeking
some scholarly references to Smalltalk being "Strongly Typed."
I my review of Smalltalk I was surprised to find that [1] describes
Smalltalk as Strongly Typed, since Smalltalk is sometimes denigrated as
b
21 matches
Mail list logo
