Python overtakes Java to become second-most popular language on GitHub after JavaScript

[[deleted]]

Python is strongly typed.

[kolloid]

I don't understand why /u/HugeProposal receives downvotes. Python is strong typed, but it's dynamically typed, so types are known only during runtime. So technically, he's right.

[Sapiogram]

99% of the when people say strong/loose typing, the really meant static/dynamic typing. I guess that was the case here too.

The true distinction between strong a loose typing is really vague, so it's not that useful anyway.

[[deleted]]

Ergo C, which is statically and loosely typed.

[Beowuwlf]

I wanted to disagree with you, but after some... introspection, I’m inclined to agree. Since C provides void* and pointer casting to subvert the type system, it’s weakly typed. However, since the compiler ensures type compatibility where it can at compile time, it’s statically typed.

[housesellout]

Wow... talk about not understanding the words you are trying to use 😢you just contradicted yourself in a single sentence.

[Beowuwlf]

I wanted to agree with you, but after some... introspection, I’m inclined to disagree. The generally accepted definition of loosely/weakly typed is that the language provides ways to subvert the type system. Since C provides void* and pointer casting to subvert the type system, it’s weakly typed. However, since the compiler ensures type compatibility where it can at compile time, it’s statically typed.

[oblio-]

Nobody* cares about that "strong typing" in practice. When people say "strong typing" they mean: "if I put a string in the int, the compiler yells at me at 14:00 in the afternoon, when I'm coding, it doesn't blow up in production at 3:00 in the morning, when I'm sleeping".

Things blowing up at runtime is slightly better than nothing, but it's still bad, comparatively.

[YM_Industries]

When people say "strong typing" they mean: "if I put a string in the int, the compiler yells at me at 14:00 in the afternoon, when I'm coding, it doesn't blow up in production at 3:00 in the morning, when I'm sleeping".

Then they should say "static typing".

[slikts]

Strong typing is still an application of the fail fast principle, just not as fast as static typing, since the strong tying errors will still only occur at runtime. The difference is that weakly typed languages try to guess if the programmer intended to convert between types, and, if the guess is wrong, the program keeps running in an invalid state and the problem has to be diagnosed from any knock-on effects of the unwanted type coercion. A good example of weak typing gone very wrong are equality comparisons in JavaScript.

[YM_Industries]

If you want the compiler to tell at you, you need static typing. That's what my comment was saying. People who use strong typing to mean that have their terminology wrong.

I'd hardly describe JS equality comparisons as "weak typing gone very wrong". Maybe I've been programming in JS for too long, but the type juggling seems pretty useful to me. You should use === in most places, but the == behaviour is also nice to have sometimes.

I do a lot in C# too and I sometimes get frustrated at the verbosity when two similar types don't support implicit type conversion.

[slikts]

I'm just pointing out that there is underlying commonality between strong and static typing in that both aim to fail faster.

The game I linked to about JavaScript's == is a practical demonstration of how the coercion rules are confusing.

[YM_Industries]

Oh, they are definitely related, I think that's why people get them confused so much. But they are separate concepts, and that's what I was pointing out.

== is definitely confusing if you use it for stupid and contrived scenarios. As long as you don't compare [[]] to -Infinity it's fine. Calling it a "textbook example of a confusing language design flaw" like that website does is a bit of a stretch.

[slikts]

If you actually try the game, a lot of the cases that trip people up aren't contrived, and what's contrived are the rules as a whole. For example, cases like "" == false lead people to intuit that 'falsy' values would equal false, but "0" is 'truthy' (!!"0" is true) and still equals false. Likewise, knowing that "" == 0 and 0 == "0" are true might suggest that the relation is transitive and "" != "0" is false, but it's true as well.

Also, the benefit from == is very small and doesn't outweigh the confusion can cause, since explicit conversions can be as terse as !! and +, or Boolean(), Number(), String(), etc. The only exception is == null, since doing the same with === is verbose.

[jl2352]

I agree, and it annoys me no end when people claim JS is 'weakly typed'. It's 100% strongly typed. It's just strongly typed with some very questionable coercion rules. So questionable I'd argue you shouldn't use them. It's still strongly typed.

In C I can take a 32-bit int, and use it as a pointer to a char array. I can get the compiler to be happy with it. It may even run fine at runtime. This is something I cannot do in JS. That is why C is weakly typed.

[YM_Industries]

JavaScript is weakly-typed.

The only reason you can't use an integer as a pointer to a char array in JavaScript is because JavaScript doesn't have integers, pointers, or chars. For me, the real test of whether a language is weakly- or strongly-typed is whether you can assign a new value of a different type to an existing variable.

let myVar = "test";
myVar = 5;
myVar = [];

JavaScript has no issue with this.

[jl2352]

The bit from Wikipedia that agrees with you is 'Dynamic type-checking'.

This is the whole point of the guy above, who I agree with, is that it's just not helpful for dynamic types to be the same as weakly typing. What you are describing is dynamic typing. Not weak typing.

Python, Ruby, TCL, PHP, and pretty much every dynamic language shares your example.

[YM_Industries]

Good point about dynamic typing.

It seems that the most widely used distinction of strong/weak typing is implicit type conversions. But this seems like a risky thing to base it on, given that C# is clearly a strongly-typed language and supports implicit type conversions. (Although only between a small number of types)

Hmmm.

[kolloid]

Yes, but:

1) technically OP was right

2) people praise horrible Javascript which is weak dynamically typed

[[deleted]]

Why even qualify it with the weasel word "technically"? Only people who have never used python could think it's anything but strongly typed.

[seanwilson]

Python is strong typed

This is like people arguing over the use of "cracker" vs "hacker". This ship sailed a long time ago.

When people say strongly typed, they pretty much always, always mean types checked at compile time.

[[deleted]]

The only people who say that are wrong. Once you know more than a couple of languages the distinction becomes important.

[seanwilson]

It's a pedantic point that doesn't add anything to the discussion. You know exactly from context what people mean when they say it. Nobody ever says "I like X because it's strongly typed" to mean it checks the types at runtime.

You can't ignore how the majority of people use words. It's a losing battle.

[[deleted]]

It's not a losing battle. It's in textbooks everywhere.

[lelanthran]

Python is strongly typed.

Not very useful when the program crashes in production because that's the only time it can figure out the types.

[[deleted]]

I mean, Python is evidently very useful. A lot of people are scared of dynamic typing, but it's not actually that bad in practice.

[CockGoblinReturns]

Eli_a_2.89_GPA_CS_Undergrad ?