[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
A beginner interjects
Chris,
The problem, as you indirectly note, is that this whole thread has FAQ
status. There's nothing here that hasn't been said a million times on
newsgroups and in classrooms. Notice I avoided taking Vanier's bait
on his (re-)definition of standard terms. The problem is, until now,
there hasn't been a good FAQ on this topic.
There is now. I'd recommend that anyone interested in truly
understanding types -- or, at the very least, in having a conversation
about types with an academic -- work through at least sections 1-3 and
section 5 of Benjamin Pierce's new book, "Types and Programming
Languages" (no, not available on-line). I don't agree with everything
it says, but I disagree with relatively little. More to the point, it
lays down the law on a whole bunch of topics that really aren't worth
discussing. And, of course, it establishes a common terminology so we
can at least make sure we're not speaking at cross-purposes.
I won't claim that the book obviates this entire discussion -- it
doesn't -- but it would have helped us get to the nub of the matter a
lot, lot sooner.
Shriram
- References:
- Re: Strong Typing, Dynamic Languages, What to do?
- From: Oscar Fuentes <ofv@wanadoo.es>
- Re: Strong Typing, Dynamic Languages, What to do?
- From: Oscar Fuentes <ofv@wanadoo.es>
- Re: Strong Typing, Dynamic Languages, What to do?
- From: Sebastian H Seidel <Sebastian.H.Seidel@hno.med.uni-giessen.de>
- Re: Strong Typing, Dynamic Languages, What to do?
- From: Shriram Krishnamurthi <sk@cs.brown.edu>
- Re: Strong Typing, Dynamic Languages, What to do?
- From: Shriram Krishnamurthi <sk@cs.brown.edu>
- A beginner interjects
- From: Chris Wright <caw@cs.mu.oz.au>