Talk:Strong and weak typing
![]() | Computer science Start‑class Mid‑importance | ||||||||||||||||
|
OR
It looks like there's a lot of OR on this page. Since strong/weak typing doesn't have a single accepted definition, all examples should be backed by reliable sources, but most aren't. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 15:11, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
- Yes, "strong" and "weak" typing is just an attempt to simplify Type_system#Type_checking.
- I don't think any researcher would use "weak" and "strong" type terminology nowdays. Ushkin N (talk) 00:57, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
I've been researching the "etymology" of the terms strong and weak typing since a while. See my results so far at User:Ruud Koot/Computer science/Strong and weak typing. There isn't a universally accepted definition of those terms, but there are a small number of definitions that are often used. While contemporary researchers would rarely use these terms in a formal sense, they are still used in more colloquial speech. I think that a well-written article on this topic would be come too large to merge in its entirety into Type system (which should be an overview article, given the size of the topic). —Ruud 10:58, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
- IMO, we shouldn't use them at Type system or Programming language pages.
- I'd rather mark it as Category:Buzzwords (or similar) because it confuses so many concepts in type(s) (systems) under two words "weak" "strong" (or speakers using it).
- Programming_language#Weak_and_strong_typing
- Type_system#.22Strong.22_and_.22weak.22_type_systems
- However, we can link them in "See also" section or mention in the article from time to time. But not to crate paragraphs for these 2 words everywhere. Ushkin N (talk) 12:35, 22 May 2016 (UTC)