Talk:Typed and untyped languages

message: Dan Sugalski:What the heck is: A type
"Perl, oddly enough, is a good example of a strongly typed language. (The rich--and arguably excessive--behaviour of its base types tends to confuse folks on that account) A scalar is a scalar is a scalar--no matter what you do you'll never convince perl to treat it as an array, and when you have a reference to an array you can't, unlike in C, treat it as a reference to a hash or scalar or filehandle. There's no casting possible, either directly or through references." --Michal Jurosz 22:44, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: The problem is that the term "strongly typed" is completely meaningless. Perl fits into maybe a couple of the definitions. Probably only a language like ML would fit most of them. The Strongly typed article shows all of the definitions; clearly Perl does not meet some of them (which is not a bad thing, but the continued use of the term as if it had meaning isn't very helpful). MShonle 05:11, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Perl is a strongly typed language 

message: $str = "3dfsd";
$int = 4;
print $str + $int;
print "\n";
print $str . $int;
print "\n";
use strict;
use warnings;
my $str = "3dfsd";
my $int = 4;
print $str + $int;
print "\n";
print $str . $int;
print "\n";
Output will be:
7
3dfsd4
Argument "3dfsd" isn't numeric in addition (+) at F:\p.pl line 13.
7
3dfsd4
--Michal Jurosz 22:44, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Basic Perl example 

message: untyped language means the language does not have any type declaration.
Untyped is where operations are valid on everything because it's all a sequence of bits.
Dynamic is completely different and refers to when the type is discovered.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.210.153.89 (talk) 17:51, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Effectively no modern programming languages, above the level of assembly, are untyped. --FOo 15:53, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: "Untyped Language"

message: I suggest that this disinction be eliminated from the article.  Several people have suggested this in the discussion above ("the term "strongly typed" is completely meaningless", "This article needs to ... make clear ...  exactly under what definition each of these languages is strongly- or weakly-typed. ") and the similar point is made at Strongly-typed that the term "strongly-typed programming language" has no generally accepted meaning; accordingly, the division of languages into "strongly typed" and "weakly typed" will always be either arbitrary or inconsistent---or both, as it is in this article.  The simple fact is that (for example) Python is strongly typed by some definitions and weakly typed by other definitions, and that all of these definitions are in common use. 
The distinction between static and dynamic typing seems clearer to me, but I eagerly await arguments demonstrating that it is as meaningless as the distinction between "strong" and "weak" typing.  -- Dominus 14:26, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Strong vs. weak-typed languages 

message: I'm so horribly tempted to add a link to think of the children on the 'see also' list. :-) <Slaps self>- (User) WolfKeeper (Talk) 21:04, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Must... resist...