In comp.lang.functional Chris Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: [...] > Knowing that it'll cause a lot of strenuous objection, I'll nevertheless > interject my plea not to abuse the word "type" with a phrase like > "dynamically typed". If anyone considers "untyped" to be perjorative, > as some people apparently do, then I'll note that another common term is > "type-free," which is marketing-approved but doesn't carry the > misleading connotations of "dynamically typed." We are quickly losing > any rational meaning whatsoever to the word "type," and that's quite a > shame. [...]
FWIW, I agree and have argued similarly on many occasions (both on the net (e.g. http://groups.google.fi/group/comp.programming/msg/ba3ccfde4734313a?hl=fi&;) and person-to-person). The widely used terminology (statically / dynamically typed, weakly / strongly typed) is extremely confusing to beginners and even to many with considerable practical experience. -Vesa Karvonen -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
