Comments on: Ruby is dynamically AND strongly typed

By: RubySource: .NET to Ruby: The Ruby Environment - Rubin Shrestha | www.rubin.com.np

Tue, 09 Aug 2011 01:27:42 +0000

[...] what Ruby is. Ruby is a dynamic, strongly typed, and interpreted language. C# is a static, strongly typed language. Ruby was created in the mid-1990s by Yukihiro Matsumoto, Matz for short. First and foremost Ruby [...]

By: .NET to Ruby: The Ruby Environment » RubySource

.NET to Ruby: The Ruby Environment » RubySource — Mon, 08 Aug 2011 08:20:49 +0000

By: Samuel Vinícius

Samuel Vinícius — Thu, 16 Sep 2010 16:22:23 +0000

Very nice!

ex.:

x = 100
(1..4).each{ x = x * 100 ; puts “#{ x.class} #{x}” }

result:

Fixnum 10000
Fixnum 1000000
Fixnum 100000000
Bignum 10000000000

By: Samuel Vinícius

Samuel Vinícius — Thu, 16 Sep 2010 16:21:19 +0000

Very nice!

ex.:

x = 100
(1..4).each{ x = x * 100 ; puts “#{ x.class} #{x}” }

result:

Fixnum 10000
Fixnum 1000000
Fixnum 100000000
Bignum 10000000000

By: Dynamic, static, weak and strong in languages « Altug Sahin's Blog

Dynamic, static, weak and strong in languages « Altug Sahin's Blog — Thu, 15 Jul 2010 19:48:22 +0000

[...] came across this interesting post. Here is the [...]

By: Frank

Frank — Tue, 15 Sep 2009 04:26:07 +0000

Dilruk,

in your example dynamic/static doesn’t apply. It’s the Strong/Weak aspect of typing that is affected. In ruby, your example would throw out an exception. In a weakly typed language, it would try to mix the two types… In most cases I guess it would give something like “This is a number7″

Thanks for your comments everyone (I’m just 2 years late) !

By: Dilruk

Dilruk — Tue, 24 Feb 2009 21:45:55 +0000

A = “This is a number”
What would be the result for A = A + 7 in a Dynamically typed language?

By: txt » Dynamic/Static/Strong/Weak Types

txt » Dynamic/Static/Strong/Weak Types — Wed, 25 Jul 2007 18:16:17 +0000

[...] Original Article [...]

By: Shadowfiend

Shadowfiend — Sat, 14 Jul 2007 23:34:41 +0000

But that’s often what’s meant with weak. Weak means that there is a weak distinction between the types (more or less). In C, that’s particularly evident because you get virtually no distinction between pointer types — they’re all integers at the end of the day, and you can do whatever you want with them. Casting lets you achieve just about anything, with no checking until you get a segfault in your running program :)

By: Matt Giuca

Matt Giuca — Fri, 13 Jul 2007 16:35:16 +0000

So from some of these comments (the guy who overloaded Ruby + and the guy who said C is weakly typed) – it seems like we can classify strong/weak as being a property of the OPERATORS themselves, not the type system! (For the most part).

I wouldn’t classify C as having a particularly weak type system. It lets you implicitly cast numbers around (eg. (int)3 + (float)4.7 => (float)7.7), but that’s about it. For instance, C won’t let you go “3″ + 4 and give you 7 – which a truly “weak” type system will give you.

Oh no, C is far worse – it isn’t _weak_, it’s _unsafe_! The 3rd classification after dynamic/static and weak/strong is safe/unsafe. In C if you do “3″ + 4, you get … a pointer 3 bytes past the end of the string! This is usually unacceptable in modern languages so it doesn’t happen in most. But just a point, I wouldn’t consider that “weakness”.

Sorry for getting off-topic. Oh, a very good article though!