Topic: data types are not needed

Summary

Data types are not necessary for programming languages; for instance APL and LISP do not differentiate data by types. Their universal data type allow any procedure to be used on any data object. It appears that types have no intrinsic meaning. In formal logic, Whitehead felt types were needed for self-referential predicates, but Brown handles such predicates by imaginary values within the algebra. (cbb 5/80)

Weak data typing creates long term problems. See (Topic: weak vs. strong type checking) for a discussion. (cbb 1/90)

Subtopic: no types

Quote: in Smalltalk, any object can be assigned to any name without type restrictions

Quote: the formal and operational definitions of School do not refer to types; type checking is only for avoiding type errors at run-time [»rodrNR8_1993]

Quote: an untyped XML value is a sequence of untyped elements and strings; e.g., XML before validation [»simeJ1_2003]

Subtopic: hardware types

Quote: type errors are a problem for machine programming; e.g., using an integer as an address [»hoarCA_1974]

Subtopic: problems with no types

Quote: a robust library expresses constraints as types, reports errors relative to user, and does not cause application errors [»fricA4_2000]

Quote: while untyped variables is good for exploratory programming, you often know the type ahead of time

Quote: specifying data types makes code more readable [»nielJ5_1989]

Quote: in computing, restricted data types are assumed; e.g., text editors do not work on binary files [»coxBJ7_1983]

Related Topics

Topic: dynamic vs. static data type (24 items)
Topic: early vs. late binding (15 items)
Topic: fundamental concepts such as type, attributes, relationships are all the same (37 items)
Topic: list processing (15 items)
Topic: object-oriented data types (29 items)
Topic: primitive data type as memory (29 items)
Topic: universal data type (18 items)
Topic: weak vs. strong type checking
(42 items)