[Pharo-dev] Smalltalk = strongly typed

kilon thekilon at yahoo.co.uk
Fri Aug 2 14:05:04 EDT 2013


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 language use types but variable can change types depending on
the type of data it receives. 

Weakly typed language will convert the type automatically if the wrong type
is used. 

There is nothing stopping a static type language being weakly typed.
Actually javascript is such an example.  I have no idea how one could mix up
static typing with strong typing , they look similar as word but they
semantics if you exclude the fact that both talk about types are vastly
different. 

In case of smalltalk none of the above is valid because smalltalk does not
use types but rather objects. At best you could say it uses objects that
emulate types, but since the object itself is typeless I dont think it makes
a difference. 

Because of this its possible to emulate all these characteristic at the same
time since the nature of smalltalk is to be very flexible. Probably lisp is
very similar too.

Afterall what forcing an object to complain about its type or do not allow
to convert data at passing , or allow it / implement it ? You can do pretty
much anything with message sending. Super powerful stuff. 





--
View this message in context: http://forum.world.st/Smalltalk-strongly-typed-tp4701894p4701965.html
Sent from the Pharo Smalltalk Developers mailing list archive at Nabble.com.




More information about the Pharo-dev mailing list