Thank You for your explanation which establishes the context from which the statement "JavaScript is untyped" makes sense.
This is why I don't get how someone, arguing in good faith, can point out that JavaScript is a typed language.
My interpretation of this article is that it is trying to address the case where the statement "JavaScript is untyped" is made while the not having the strict definition of "types" as you present it (and people reading and running with it).
I personally stick with statically and dynamically typed for practical reasons but all too often come across dubious uses of "weakly typed" and "strongly typed" where "untyped" isn't being used to state "without static analysis" but to imply so fundamentally unreliable, it might as well just be operating on a sea of strings.
Michael Feathers
@mfeathers
Amazing then that Erlang (a dynamically typed language) can give you better reliability than we have in most other systems. I like static typing but it obviously isn’t necessary for quality. twitter.com/knocte/status/…
12:19 PM - 05 Nov 2018
Andres G. Aragoneses⚡️
@knocte
@mfeathers dynamically typed is already a bad design: it's a can of (worms) potential irrecoverable runtime errors in itself
Erlang is a great example of this that exists purely in software. Its design is oriented toward making failure inconsequential (in a dynamically typed language no less).
08:11 AM - 11 Aug 2021
There seems to be an ongoing oversimplification
statically analysed = safe and correct (e.g. type safety)
dynamically typed = absolute garbage
My position is that I am constantly thinking in "types" even when working with a dynamically typed language.
Michael Feathers
@mfeathers
I like the idea of types as a thought tool more than I like type systems.
Thanks for the link. I'll take my time to contrast that with my own and try to contextualize how and when the each terms appear. Thanks once more for the discussion!
For further actions, you may consider blocking this person and/or reporting abuse
We're a place where coders share, stay up-to-date and grow their careers.
Thank You for your explanation which establishes the context from which the statement "JavaScript is untyped" makes sense.
My interpretation of this article is that it is trying to address the case where the statement "JavaScript is untyped" is made while the not having the strict definition of "types" as you present it (and people reading and running with it).
I personally stick with statically and dynamically typed for practical reasons but all too often come across dubious uses of "weakly typed" and "strongly typed" where "untyped" isn't being used to state "without static analysis" but to imply so fundamentally unreliable, it might as well just be operating on a sea of strings.
There seems to be an ongoing oversimplification
My position is that I am constantly thinking in "types" even when working with a dynamically typed language.
Thanks for the link. I'll take my time to contrast that with my own and try to contextualize how and when the each terms appear. Thanks once more for the discussion!