I thought untyped meant the same as dynamically typed? Like "untyped" not in the sense that there are no types, but "untyped" in the sense that variables aren't bound to a certain type
In that way, I agree. This discussion is interesting: stackoverflow.com/questions/915438... It validates this usage, but it also says that it is a not-so-accurate shortcut.
In my opinion, "untyped" can also refer to cases where there is really "no type". In C++, it is often the case when deal with raw bytes (they are untyped on their own, you can interpret then the way you want) or when you use assembly code (a register simply holds a number, it could be either an int or an enum that fits in an int).
That's why I prefer to use "dynamically typed" when types are actually checked by the language : )
For further actions, you may consider blocking this person and/or reporting abuse
We're a place where coders share, stay up-to-date and grow their careers.
I thought untyped meant the same as dynamically typed? Like "untyped" not in the sense that there are no types, but "untyped" in the sense that variables aren't bound to a certain type
In that way, I agree. This discussion is interesting: stackoverflow.com/questions/915438... It validates this usage, but it also says that it is a not-so-accurate shortcut.
In my opinion, "untyped" can also refer to cases where there is really "no type". In C++, it is often the case when deal with raw bytes (they are untyped on their own, you can interpret then the way you want) or when you use assembly code (a register simply holds a number, it could be either an
intor an enum that fits in anint).That's why I prefer to use "dynamically typed" when types are actually checked by the language : )