If you call a method in Java, you can see right there which method you are
calling. You can then lexically follow the inheritance tree and find out exactly
what code really is called, what its signature is, and what it returns. Nothing
dynamic is involved.
One might ask for other featues, but I consider looking at the code and
1 - knowing what other code it is going to call, or
2 - whether that class really has that member or not,
etc. at compile time to be a minimum reqirement of any typing I would call strong.
Daniel
John Porter wrote:
> Daniel S. Wilkerson wrote:
> > I can't imagine any way in which one can consider Perl typing to be "strong".
> > When you know the type of a variable, you are supposed to have confidence
> > that when you see a statement
> > a - lexically locally (without looking around elsewhere) and
> > b - at compile time
> > you know exactly what the statement means.
>
> No, that is not "strong typing". That is "static typing".
>
> --
> John Porter
