Re: Object-relational impedence
Date: Thu, 6 Mar 2008 00:12:17 -0800 (PST)
On Mar 5, 10:40 pm, Robert Martin <uncle..._at_objectmentor.com> wrote:
> On 2008-03-05 14:10:11 -0600, "Dmitry A. Kazakov"
> >>>> <snip>
> >>>> You are confusing OO with static typing. In OO languages like Ruby,
> >>>> Python, or Smalltalk you can pass any object to any function
> >>>> irrespective of type.
> >>> Which is a bad idea.
> >> Why?
> > Because it is in fact untyped.
> No, it's just not statically typed.
This issue is entirely tangential to the thread, but just FYI. There is a strict, formal definition of "type" under which languages like Python, Smalltalk, etc. are untyped. This sense of the term is often favored in type theory, and in fact is the one that introduced the word "type" to mathematics.
In common parlance, however, untyped languages are typically called "dynamically typed" in cases where they employ a runtime tag system to classify values.
I propose the thread is already sufficiently contentious without introducing further areas of controversy, such as static typing vs. whatever you care to call the other thing.
Marshall Received on Thu Mar 06 2008 - 09:12:17 CET