language agnostic - Is my understanding of type systems correct?

Question

The following statements represent my understanding of type systems (which suffers from too little hands-on experience outside the Java world); please correct any errors.

The static/dynamic distinction seems pretty clear-cut:

• Statically typed langauges assign each variable, field and parameter a type and the compiler prevents assignments between incompatible types. Examples: C, Java, Pascal.
• Dynamically typed languages treat variables as generic bins that can hold anything you want - types are checked (if at all) only at runtime when you actually perform operations on the values, not when you assign them. Examples: Smalltalk, Python, JavaScript.
• Type inference allows statically typed languages to look like (and have some of the advantages of) dynamically typed ones, by inferring types from the context so that you don't have to declare them most of the time - but unlike in dynamic languages, you cannot e.g. use a variable to hold a string initially and then assign an integer to it. Examples: Haskell, Scala

I am much less certain about the strong/weak distinction, and I suspect that it's not very clearly defined:

• Strongly typed languages assign each runtime value a type and only allow operations to be performed that are defined for that type, otherwise there is an explicit type error.
• Weakly typed languages don't have runtime type checks - if you try to perform an operation on a value that it does not support, the results are unpredictable. It may actually do something useful, but more likely you'll get corrupted data, a crash, or some undecipherable secondary error.
• There seems to be at least two different kinds of weakly typed languages (or perhaps a continuum):
  • In C and assembler, values are basically buckets of bits, so anything is possible and if you get the compiler to dereference the first 4 bytes of a null-terminated string, you better hope it leads somewhere that does not contain legal machine code.
  • PHP and JavaScript are also generally considered weakly typed, but do not consider values to be opaque bit buckets; they will, however, perform implicit type conversions.
• But these implicit conversions seem to apply mainly to string/integer/float variables - does that really warrant the classification as weakly typed? Or are there other issues where these languages's type system may obfuscate errors?

Answer 1

I am much less certain about the strong/weak distinction, and I suspect that it's not very clearly defined.

You are right: it isn't.

This is what Benjamin C. Pierce, author of Types and Programming Languages and Advanced Types and Programming Languages has to say:

I spent a few weeks... trying to sort out the terminology of "strongly typed," "statically typed," "safe," etc., and found it amazingly difficult.... The usage of these terms is so various as to render them almost useless.

Luca Cardelli, in his Typeful Programming article, defines it as the absence of unchecked run-time type errors. Tony Hoare calls that exact same property "security". Other papers call it "type safety" or simply "safety".

Mark-Jason Dominus wrote a classic rant about this a couple of years ago on the comp.lang.perl.moderated newsgroup, in a discussion about whether or not Perl was strongly typed. In this rant he states that within just a few hours of research, he was able to find 8 different, sometimes contradictory definitions, mostly from respected sources like college textbooks or peer-reviewed papers. In particular, those texts contained examples that were meant to help the students distinguish between strongly and weakly typed languages, and according to those examples, C is strongly typed, C is weakly typed, C++ is strongly typed, C++ is weakly typed, Lisp is strongly typed, Lisp is weakly typed, Perl is strongly typed, Perl is weakly typed. (Does that clear up any confusion?)

The only definition that I have seen consistently applied is:

• strongly typed: my programming language
• weakly typed: your programming language