On November 21, 2005 2:56 PM Gaby wrote: > ... > | > | I still think the referenced article is well balanced > | > | and accurate. > | > > | > I don't think so If is full of confusion and misunderstanding. > | > | You have given only one example of something you disagree with > > You're very kind in crediting me as author of the example you put > forward :-) >
Well, I suppose I should have been a little more careful with my example. How about this: $ gcc --version;cat cast1.c; gcc -o cast1 cast1.c; cast1 gcc.exe (GCC) 3.4.2 (mingw-special) Copyright (C) 2004 Free Software Foundation, Inc. This is free software; see the source for copying conditions. There is NO warranty; not even for MERCHANTABILITY or FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. /* 'caste' example of weak typing in C Author: Bill Page Date: 21 Nov 2005 */ #include <stdio.h> int main(int argn, char *argv[]) { int i; float j; i = 1; j = (float)i; printf("float: %d\n",j); return 0; } float: 0 ---------- Does this program conform to ISO C99? Does it compile with your newer version of gcc? Does it produce a result that you expect? > ... > | > Unfortunately, many people take it as a Bible sentence > | > don't go and do a minimum scrutinity as would be required > | > in a scientific setting :-( > | > > | > | Maybe some people do, but I do not intend to accept such an > | attitude. I think I have applied much more than "minimum > | scrutiny" to this article. Of course it is difficult to be > | entirely accurate in an article that is intended to be at > | most one or two pages. > > Well, don't take it as a personal thing. My comment was very > broad and was not targetting you specifically. It upset me you > took it personally. No problem, I do not mind being "targetted" even if you did not intend it. Please don't worry that I took it "personally", but I did take it seriously and I think you meant it seriously, right? > ... > Notice I'm not disputing that the term "strong typing" is > ambiguous. I'm disagreeing with the claims that the C > programming language was supposed to illustrate. Do you think my improved example illustrates this point? > > (I know of lot of deficiencies in C -- it is hard not to, > when you're involved in its specification and implementation) > but none of the examples I've so far are illustrative of the > claim of "weak typing". I am very glad that you have been active in the standardization of C and that you are here discussing Axiom. Perhaps some day we will be talking about standardization of computer algebra languages? > > | Could you provide a reference to a short article that you > | think is less "full of confusion and misunderstanding"? > > About C? The shortest is the ISO C specification :-) > That is a pity. Suppose we agree to strike all references of C from the Wikipedia article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Datatype then would you consider it a reasonable brief discussion of type systems in programming languages? Regards, Bill Page. _______________________________________________ Axiom-developer mailing list Axiom-developer@nongnu.org http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/axiom-developer