On Wed, Jan 25, 2023 at 01:01:24PM +1100, Chris Angelico wrote: > On Wed, 25 Jan 2023 at 12:43, <avi.e.gr...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Python has a different philosophy than some other languages with strong > > typing. In some of those, you would not be allowed to add or multiply at > > random but would need to convert parts of your calculation to all be the > > same, such as a 32-bit integer. You could still do things like I mention > > above but only after consciously mapping your Boolean to an actual zero or > > one of the kind wanted. > > Python is strongly dynamically typed. You may be thinking of "static > typing" rather than "strong typing" here,
You often insist on this but frankly it does not jibe with the definitions of "strongly typed language" that I was taught or that I still see used commonly, including in literature and on sites that aim to teach people about computer science, which basically amount to: 1. A language whose variables are defined by type, and can only hold that type, typically but not necessarily compiled. 2. A language which strongly enforces restrictions on mixing or operating on, and/or implicitly converting different data types, with the implication that the structure of types is well-defined and rigid. Python conforms to neither--its VARIABLES are normally untyped (though the object data they hold obviously is). Object instances can have new fields added to them on the fly, willy-nilly, and Python allows for any object which has an interface--or rather only the portion of interface you care about in the moment--like the one it expects, to be used in a given context, i.e. duck typing. Useful properties (when used carefully!) but not intuitively consistent with the idea of "strong typing" and potentially dangerous if care is not taken. When YOU say that Python is strongly typed, you're using some other definition--one that is perhaps technically correct, but seemingly quite a lot of people in the field--including active students, college professors, and seasoned professionsals--are unaware of... The above usages are common and widespread, widely accepted--which is inherently what makes word usages correct--and you very obviously know full well what people mean when they use them; so "correcting" people who use them seems rather unhelpful (certainly without detailing what you think it means), inappropriate, and arguably just simply wrong. It seems to serve no purpose other than to make communication harder, and possibly to irritate people. I would encourage you to consider ceasing the practice, so as to not needlessly detract from the otherwise usually good info you routinely provide... And FWIW if you want some references, a google search will return voluminous examples of people using the term as I described--from acadamia to business--but here are just a few: https://www.cs.cornell.edu/courses/cs1130/2012sp/1130selfpaced/module1/module1part4/strongtyping.html https://courses.yarrahills.vic.edu.au/moodle/mod/book/view.php?id=18778&chapterid=28 https://www.oreilly.com/library/view/mastering-c-and/9781785884375/ch02s02.html https://www.postgresql.org/docs/current/typeconv-overview.html https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/computer-science/strongly-typed-language https://www.techtarget.com/whatis/definition/strongly-typed -- https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
