Even if you are correct that they are well defined, by that definition Lisp, Ruby, Python, JavaScript and Julia are strongly typed. C, Forth and assembly language are not. So the distinction isn't useful in this discussion.
Javascript is probably one of the weakest typed languages out there. {}+{}, []+[], {}+[] are all completely valid operations in javascript that cause all kinds of implicit coercions. And assembly language is very strongly typed: it just has a very simple type system.
As for Julia, I'm not sure how strongly or weakly typed it is, but I would probably put it at around the same level as Java.
Well, Forth is considered untyped, which I think is apt: it's basically bytes on a stack passed between words, with semantic meaning completely in the programmer's head and hopefully well-documented.
With that in mind, shouldn't we expect it to be a good base case for describing the "weakest typed" language?
Comments
Even if you are correct that they are well defined, by that definition Lisp, Ruby, Python, JavaScript and Julia are strongly typed. C, Forth and assembly language are not. So the distinction isn't useful in this discussion.
Javascript is probably one of the weakest typed languages out there. {}+{}, []+[], {}+[] are all completely valid operations in javascript that cause all kinds of implicit coercions. And assembly language is very strongly typed: it just has a very simple type system.
As for Julia, I'm not sure how strongly or weakly typed it is, but I would probably put it at around the same level as Java.
Well, Forth is considered untyped, which I think is apt: it's basically bytes on a stack passed between words, with semantic meaning completely in the programmer's head and hopefully well-documented.
With that in mind, shouldn't we expect it to be a good base case for describing the "weakest typed" language?