Comments on: An Objective Look at Javascript 2.0: Strong Typing http://timkadlec.com/2008/04/an-objective-look-at-javascript-2-0-strong-typing/ A Wisconsin based web developer writing about the web. Tue, 13 Jul 2010 17:23:31 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0 By: James Justin Harrell http://timkadlec.com/2008/04/an-objective-look-at-javascript-2-0-strong-typing/comment-page-1/#comment-72 James Justin Harrell Wed, 30 Apr 2008 00:00:00 +0000 http://localhost/1969/12/an-objective-look-at-javascript-2-0-strong-typing/#comment-72 Terms like 'strong typing' and 'loose typing' are so vague as to be meaningless. If you're going to use them, you should first define them. Terms like ‘strong typing’ and ‘loose typing’ are so vague as to be meaningless. If you’re going to use them, you should first define them.

]]> By: Tim Kadlec http://timkadlec.com/2008/04/an-objective-look-at-javascript-2-0-strong-typing/comment-page-1/#comment-73 Tim Kadlec Wed, 30 Apr 2008 00:00:00 +0000 http://localhost/1969/12/an-objective-look-at-javascript-2-0-strong-typing/#comment-73 @James - Apologies for the confusion. In the terms of the article - a loosely typed system doesn't enforce type annotations. In a loosely typed system, blocks of data appearing to be of one type can be treated as another. In a strongly typed system, those blocks of data must first be explicitly converted to the desired type. @James – Apologies for the confusion. In the terms of the article – a loosely typed system doesn’t enforce type annotations. In a loosely typed system, blocks of data appearing to be of one type can be treated as another. In a strongly typed system, those blocks of data must first be explicitly converted to the desired type.

]]> By: Adrien F. http://timkadlec.com/2008/04/an-objective-look-at-javascript-2-0-strong-typing/comment-page-1/#comment-74 Adrien F. Wed, 30 Apr 2008 00:00:00 +0000 http://localhost/1969/12/an-objective-look-at-javascript-2-0-strong-typing/#comment-74 'In the terms of the article - a loosely typed system doesn't enforce type annotations.'<br /><br />I disagree with this part of you comment. For example, OCaml is a very strongly typed language, and type annotations are optional (and almoste never used). On the other hand, C has a loosely typed system, but annotations are enforced... ‘In the terms of the article – a loosely typed system doesn’t enforce type annotations.’

I disagree with this part of you comment. For example, OCaml is a very strongly typed language, and type annotations are optional (and almoste never used). On the other hand, C has a loosely typed system, but annotations are enforced…

]]> By: Mike McNally http://timkadlec.com/2008/04/an-objective-look-at-javascript-2-0-strong-typing/comment-page-1/#comment-70 Mike McNally Tue, 29 Apr 2008 00:00:00 +0000 http://localhost/1969/12/an-objective-look-at-javascript-2-0-strong-typing/#comment-70 That function declaration (line 4 of the first set of examples) seems wrong. What are the formal parameter names? That function declaration (line 4 of the first set of examples) seems wrong. What are the formal parameter names?

]]> By: Tim Kadlec http://timkadlec.com/2008/04/an-objective-look-at-javascript-2-0-strong-typing/comment-page-1/#comment-71 Tim Kadlec Tue, 29 Apr 2008 00:00:00 +0000 http://localhost/1969/12/an-objective-look-at-javascript-2-0-strong-typing/#comment-71 @Mike - You are absolutely correct....there should be formal parameter names. Apparently I didn't proof-read as well as I had thought! I went back and added some formal parameter names in now so the syntax is correct. Sorry for the confusion. @Mike – You are absolutely correct….there should be formal parameter names. Apparently I didn’t proof-read as well as I had thought! I went back and added some formal parameter names in now so the syntax is correct. Sorry for the confusion.

]]>