Stephen R Laniel wrote: > On Thu, Jun 28, 2007 at 09:08:16AM +0200, Bruno Desthuilliers wrote: > > You said ? > > I could link again to Mark-Jason Dominus, who writes that > people often make the following inference: > > 1) C is strongly typed. > 2) C's typing sucks. > 3) Hence strong typing sucks. > > But I won't. > > It doesn't need to be a religious war. Why can't people just > say "When strong typing is done and used well, it's a > useful tool; when it's not, it's not"?
Python already has strong typing, much stronger than C and arguably stronger than Java. What it doesn't have is static typing, which is good--that's one of the defining characteristics of the language, and dynamic languages have a lot to recommend them. ML and Haskell are also great languages, but they're great in a very different way. Lisp probably comes closest to a useful dynamic/static hybrid, but there the static annotations are pretty much only for the compiler's benefit, not the programmer's. -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list