Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
| From | Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | comp.lang.c |
| Subject | Re: one type less language |
| Date | 2015-06-07 20:20 +0100 |
| Organization | A noiseless patient Spider |
| Message-ID | <ml25fu$ebr$1@dont-email.me> (permalink) |
| References | <ee5b4ddd-7a35-4bff-bc23-b04ec5abf25a@googlegroups.com> <4fc72288-16e5-41cc-a814-7b598cbc2c13@googlegroups.com> <cthdk0Fnjb7U2@mid.uni-berlin.de> <0132eb60-ad1e-45ca-8284-947863adb446@googlegroups.com> |
On 07/06/2015 17:59, Malcolm McLean wrote: > On Sunday, June 7, 2015 at 12:21:46 AM UTC+1, Jens Thoms Toerring wrote: >> >> There are lots of languages that don't care much about types, >> Python is probably one of the most commonly used at the moment. >> But, while a more-or-less type-agnostic language can be very >> nice for rapid prototyping, it has also its disadvantages: >> not having to define new variables or "cast" in assignments, >> it allows for bugs that, in strongly-typed language would >> have been caught at some stage (either by the compiler or >> the interpreter). >> > The motive is to make the script interpreter easier to write. > You just bung in a hash table to allow indexing of dynamic type > elements by string identifier, and you don't care if "name" > returns a string, a structure with title, forename and surname > members, or a function that sets a name. Actually, it makes it a bit harder to write, and the bytecode compiler, if there is one, a bit easier. But writing source code becomes quicker and easier too, which is the advantage. The interpreter still needs to do type dispatching at runtime (you do need to care when about to multiply a list by a string for example), unlike one for a language with static types. -- Bartc
Back to comp.lang.c | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread
one type less language asetofsymbols@gmail.com - 2015-06-05 22:08 -0700
Re: one type less language David Kleinecke <dkleinecke@gmail.com> - 2015-06-06 09:35 -0700
Re: one type less language Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2015-06-06 13:10 -0400
Re: one type less language Les Cargill <lcargill99@comcast.com> - 2015-06-06 13:01 -0500
Re: one type less language Michael Angelo Ravera <maravera@prodigy.net> - 2015-06-07 13:03 -0700
Re: one type less language Les Cargill <lcargill99@comcast.com> - 2015-06-06 12:55 -0500
one type less language asetofsymbols@gmail.com - 2015-06-06 12:15 -0700
Re: one type less language Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-06-06 20:23 +0100
Re: one type less language Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2015-06-06 20:28 +0100
Re: one type less language jt@toerring.de (Jens Thoms Toerring) - 2015-06-06 23:21 +0000
Re: one type less language Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-06-07 09:59 -0700
Re: one type less language Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-06-07 20:20 +0100
Re: one type less language jt@toerring.de (Jens Thoms Toerring) - 2015-06-08 09:42 +0000
Re: one type less language Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-06-08 11:28 +0100
Re: one type less language Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-06-08 05:10 -0700
Re: one type less language Mel <mel@zzzzz.com> - 2015-06-08 15:39 +0300
Re: one type less language "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2015-09-08 05:23 -0400
Re: one type less language Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2015-09-08 10:20 -0500
Re: one type less language Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-06-06 13:56 -0700
Re: one type less language luser droog <luser.droog@gmail.com> - 2015-06-07 23:20 -0700
Re: one type less language asetofsymbols@gmail.com - 2015-06-08 02:50 -0700
csiph-web