I'm probably missing something obvious (wouldn't be the first time). Bubba73 (talk), 14:29, 27 November 2007 (UTC) Reply Yes, I've already looked at these pages, but they don't clarify the issue for me. Thanks for your patience.- Targ Collective ( talk) 10:27, 27 November 2007 (UTC) Reply Comparison of programming languages has a table showing which have strong typing and which don't. Again, I apologise if I did the wrong thing all the same I must ask you to support your argument if you're trying to reach consensus. Speaking as a programmer, however, who previously used a language with implicit type conversions, I miss the functionality and find it slows me down so, I drew on my experiences and tried to improve the article. Matter of fact, I'm using Delphi at present. Not that I'm arguing with you, understand, as I'm sure strong typing has its merits too. Wikipedia's supposed to be neutral, y'know, and flat statements like that aren't in the spirit of neutrality. Bubba73 (talk), 14:49, 26 November 2007 (UTC) Reply That's a pretty strong assertion! Remember, not every language is strongly typed, and those which are not still work. It is designed that way, and it is a good thing. This means said framework must be changed, and as a relative newcomer here I'd prefer to leave that to people with a better idea what they're doing.- Targ Collective ( talk) 11:41, 26 November 2007 (UTC) Reply It is what is called Strongly-typed programming language. Trouble with this concept is, it won't fit into an advantages/disadvantages framework. What is true is that while an inconvenience to some, forcing the programmer into declaring types helps a substantial number of people create bug-free code, which is of course a good thing. I prefer not to be encumbered myself by such things, but then I'm not prone to making mistakes that much when I'm coding - with me it's more likely to be a misspelled variable than anything else! So it seems, like so many things, this is subjective, which makes a final decision quite hard to reach. You don't have to spend nearly so much time tracking down hard-to-find bugs.
Targ Collective ( talk) 15:02, 20 November 2007 (UTC) Reply I've programmed in several languages, and believe me, strong type checking helps you tremendously in the long run. Once we are agreed as to the correct course of action, we can then move forward. Please, expand your reasoning so I get where you're coming from. In fact I'm really interested as to your viewpoint, and why you would say this extra weight on the programmer is a good thing. I'm always open to new ideas and assume no right to have the 'last word' here though.
Anything that gets in the way of that will hinder productivity, right? And this is a bad thing. If I'm writing a program, I want to translate concept into reality as quickly as possible. I apologise if I put the wrong thing there, but I fail to see how that can be the case. Steveastrouk 21:16, 15 November 2007 (UTC) Reply Pascal is a "bondage and discipline" language, strong typing is a major strength. The reference to the inconvenience of strong typing seems to miss the fundamental reasons for it within the definition of Pascal.
0 kommentar(er)
