Cart
[Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries]
I'm impressed by the fact that neither the interviewer nor the interviewer seem to be able to tell the difference between strong vs. weak typing and static vs. dynamic typing. It is especially amusing to see someone claim that Smalltalk is "weakly typed". As for what this argument has to do with the XML arguments on strong vs. weak typing I'd assumed it was obvious. The people who process XML with strongly typed languages (e.g. Java & C# folks) are all about strongly typed XML while those who process it with weakly typed languages (Perl & Python folks) are for weak typing in XML. Or at least that has been the case in the XML-DEV discussions I've seen. -----Original Message----- From: Sean McGrath [mailto:sean.mcgrath@p...] Sent: Wednesday, February 12, 2003 11:20 AM To: xml-dev@l... Subject: Strong versus (weak|runtime) typing An interesting interview with the great man himself, Guido van Rossum, creator of Python. http://www.artima.com/intv/strongweak.html Is the strong/weak/runtime typing argument over XML any different from that debate in programming languages. I dunno. Sean http://seanmcgrath.blogspot.com ----------------------------------------------------------------- The xml-dev list is sponsored by XML.org <http://www.xml.org>, an initiative of OASIS <http://www.oasis-open.org> The list archives are at http://lists.xml.org/archives/xml-dev/ To subscribe or unsubscribe from this list use the subscription manager: <http://lists.xml.org/ob/adm.pl>
|
