Re: Object-relational impedence
Date: Tue, 11 Mar 2008 07:59:40 GMT
> On Mar 10, 8:55 pm, Joe Thurbon <use..._at_thurbon.com> wrote:
>> Marshall wrote:
> I immediately hop out
> just seconds before missiles destroy the 'hog and
> the other two guys, but I made it out in time and
I used to play Bolo. I played as Fetid Dingo's Kidney. My play was no better than my name.
>> But before you fatigue completely from the thread: >> >> Upthread, you mentioned you had gone to some length to use most strictly >> defined modern type system terminology. I don't suppose you have a cite >> for some of it? I'm clearly out of date.
Thanks for that. I'll have a look.
> Pierce seems to be the guy everyone's citing these days,
> at least for definitions and pithy summaries of the field.
>> I tend to think of typing systems as falling somewhere on a >> four-dimensional space with the axes: >> >> Latent/Manifest >> Structural/Nominal >> Static/Dynamic >> Strong/Weak
> Well, strong/weak has been deprecated pretty hard.
Not hard enough, I think (and I say that not knowing how hard you mean.) From my perspective, weak only really ever seemed to have assembly and C in it, anyway.
> this term "safe" now, to describe what C isn't.
That was 'strong' for me.
> "Latent" seems
> to mostly be a synonym for "dynamic" now.
Oh. Wow. I used "latent" for things like Ocaml, where types are inferred, as well as things like Ruby where references are un-typed but objects are typed.
> There's also the "explicitly annotated" term,
> to describe what languages like C++ and Java are, and OCaml and > Haskell aren't.
>> I wonder just how out of date I am....
> If you understand structural vs. nominal, you're way ahead
> of most people.
Anyway, back to my personal Java hell ...
Joe Received on Tue Mar 11 2008 - 08:59:40 CET