What's the difference between values and literals? Values apparently have dynamic type, and literals apparently have static type, according to slide four of the first page in Here. But isn't a literal a value?
Using the terms used in that slideshow - a literal is kind of container, so it'll be better to compare between values and containers.
A container "contains" a value. If you write int x=1;, then x is a container and the number one is a value. But 1 is also a container - more precisely, a literal. The slideshow stress that there is a difference between the value one and the literal 1.
When you code, you can't actually access values directly - you can only do it via containers. That's why you can write x and 1, but not the value that is the number one.
A literal is a container that can be translated directly to a value without looking at it's surrounding - for example 1 can be translated directly to the number one. x can not be translated to a value in such a way, since it's a variable and we don't know what it holds unless we look at the surrounding code.
As for the dynamic vs static types - a container has a static type, known at compile-time. If it's a variable, it's the declared type of the variable. If it's an expression, it's the inferred type of the expression. If it's a literal, it's the direct type of the literal. The compiler can tell the type of each container without running the program and without caring what values it'll hold once the program runs.
A value, on the other hand, is stored in memory as a series of bytes. The type data is also stored in memory near the value(unless it's a primitive value), that's why the types of values are dynamic - because if you want to discover what type a value has, you have to look in the memory during runtime.
Even though values' types are dynamic, Java is a static language since you usually don't look at the dynamic type. Since you can only refer a value via a container, the static type of the container is used when you do things with the value.
Related
I have been wondering if dynamic types are slower in Dart.
Example given:
final dynamic example = "Example"
versus
final String example = "Example"
Yes, using dynamic typed variables in Dart is often slower than using variables typed with an actual type.
However, your example is not using dynamic as type, it is using type inference to infer the String type. That might cost a little extra at compile-time, but at run-time, your two code examples are completely identical. Both variables are typed as String.
A dynamic method invocation may be slower because the run-time system must add extra checks to ensure that the variable can do the things you are trying to do with it.
If you have int x = 2; print(x + 3); the run-time system knows that int has a + operator, and even knows what it is.
If you write dynamic x = 2; print(x + 3);, the run-time system must first check whether x has a + operator before it can call it, and find that operator's definition on the object before calling it. It might not always be slower, some cases optimize better than others, but it can never be faster.
Not all code is performance sensitive, and not all variables can be typed. If you have a variable that holds either a String or a List, and you want to know the length, just writing stringOrList.length is more convenient than stringOrList is String ? stringOrList.length : (stringOrList as List).length. It may be slower depending on the compiler and the target platform.
Well, in your first example (heh), example is inferred to be a type String, not dynamic, so how could it be slower? The style guide even recommends not adding redundant types to those variables that can be inferred correctly.
I wanted to ask if anyone knows of a programming language where there is dynamic typing but the binding between a name and a type is permanent. Static typing guards your code from assigning a wrong value into a variable, but forces you to declare(and know) the type before compilation. Dynamic typing allows you to assign values with a different type to the same variable one after the other. What I was thinking is, it would be nice to have dynamic typing, but once the variable is bound, the first binding also determines the type of the variable.
For example, using python-like syntax, if I write by mistake:
persons = []
....
adam = Person("adam")
persons = adam #(instead of persons += [adam])
Then I want to get an error(either at runtime or during compilation if possible) because name was defined as a list, and cannot accept values of type Person.
Same thing if the type can not be resolved statically:
result = getData()
...
result = 10
Will generate a runtime error iff getData() did not return an integer.
I know you can hack a similar behavior with a wrapper class but it would be nice to have the option by default in the language as I don't see a good legitimate use for this flexibility in dynamic languages(except for inheritance, or overwriting a common default value such as null/None which could be permitted as special cases).
I need to verify a variable is a certain type.
Is there a way to check the type of a variable in Ada?
I've tried looking at Ada attributes but didn't see anything.
Ada is a strongly typed language so there is really no need to have a function to return the variable's type, as there is in Python or Ruby (duck typed languages) because when you declare a variable you specify its type. The program already knows its type.
If a variable X is declared with type T'Class, then the type of the actual value can be T or any type derived from T. In that case, you can use X'Tag to get the tag of the value's actual type, which is the closest you can come to getting the actual type. Once you have a tag, you can do things like getting the type's name (there are functions for this in Ada.Tags), comparing it to the tag of some type to see if it's that type, etc. But Integer is not a tagged type, so you can't use 'Tag on it and there would be no use for it because it is a primitive type.
For instance, when to use
GetterUtil.getBoolean()
and when
ParamUtil.getBoolean()?
Are both same, or is it expected to be used differently according to a parameter, a variable, etc? Can you give some examples for both?
Both are util methods to avoid Null-Pointer Exceptions.
GetterUtil internally returns the default type and does the casting too. So in case where someone has passed a null value, it will return default value of the type.
Example:
Assume you have a String value "true", and you are expecting it will always be of type boolean. So you use GetterUtil.getBoolean("true") which will internally do the casting to boolen and return the value as boolean-true. Incase someone passes rubbish characters like "tr", it will be converted to boolean-false.
As mentioned ParamUtil does the same treatment with request parameters. ParamUtil internally uses the GetterUtil to have the above behaviour. It first retrieves the parameter (which always would be a string) and then passes it to GetterUtil.getType() method and in turn returns the proper type.
GetterUtil and ParmUtil both are different classes.
GetterUtil is to get the default values for basic Java data types.
ParamUtil is to retrive the values(of primitive data types) from the HttpReqeust.
Check the source code here for these two classes here
For GetterUtil
http://docs.liferay.com/portal/6.0/javadocs/src-html/com/liferay/portal/kernel/util/GetterUtil.html
For ParamUtil
http://docs.liferay.com/portal/5.1/javadocs/portal-kernel/com/liferay/portal/kernel/util/ParamUtil.java.html
Are there any other ways of changing a variable's type in a statically typed language like Java and C++, except 'casting'?
I'm trying to figure out what the main difference is in practical terms between dynamic and static typing and keep finding very academic definitions. I'm wondering what it means in terms of what my code looks like.
Make sure you don't get static vs. dynamic typing confused with strong vs. weak typing.
Static typing: Each variable, method parameter, return type etc. has a type known at compile time, either declared or inferred.
Dynamic typing: types are ignored/don't exist at compile time
Strong typing: each object at runtime has a specific type, and you can only perform those operations on it that are defined for that type.
Weak typing: runtime objects either don't have an explicit type, or the system attempts to automatically convert types wherever necessary.
These two opposites can be combined freely:
Java is statically and strongly typed
C is statically and weakly typed (pointer arithmetics!)
Ruby is dynamically and strongly typed
JavaScript is dynamically and weakly typed
Genrally, static typing means that a lot of errors are caught by the compiler which are runtime errors in a dynamically typed language - but it also means that you spend a lot of time worrying about types, in many cases unnecessarily (see interfaces vs. duck typing).
Strong typing means that any conversion between types must be explicit, either through a cast or through the use of conversion methods (e.g. parsing a string into an integer). This means more typing work, but has the advantage of keeping you in control of things, whereas weak typing often results in confusion when the system does some obscure implicit conversion that leaves you with a completely wrong variable value that causes havoc ten method calls down the line.
In C++/Java you can't change the type of a variable.
Static typing: A variable has one type assigned at compile type and that does not change.
Dynamic typing: A variable's type can change while runtime, e.g. in JavaScript:
js> x="5" <-- String
5
js> x=x*5 <-- Int
25
The main difference is that in dynamically typed languages you don't know until you go to use a method at runtime whether that method exists. In statically typed languages the check is made at compile time and the compilation fails if the method doesn't exist.
I'm wondering what it means in terms of what my code looks like.
The type system does not necessarily have any impact on what code looks like, e.g. languages with static typing, type inference and implicit conversion (like Scala for instance) look a lot like dynamically typed languages. See also: What To Know Before Debating Type Systems.
You don't need explicit casting. In many cases implicit casting works.
For example:
int i = 42;
float f = i; // f ~= 42.0
int b = f; // i == 42
class Base {
};
class Subclass : public Base {
};
Subclass *subclass = new Subclass();
Base *base = subclass; // Legal
Subclass *s = dynamic_cast<Subclass *>(base); // == subclass. Performs type checking. If base isn't a Subclass, NULL is returned instead. (This is type-safe explicit casting.)
You cannot, however, change the type of a variable. You can use unions in C++, though, to achieve some sort of dynamic typing.
Lets look at Java for he staitically typed language and JavaScript for the dynamc. In Java, for objects, the variable is a reference to an object. The object has a runtime type and the reference has a type. The type of the reference must be the type of the runtime object or one of its ancestors. This is how polymorphism works. You have to cast to go up the hierarchy of the reference type, but not down. The compiler ensures that these conditions are met. In a language like JavaScript, your variable is just that, a variable. You can have it point to whatever object you want, and you don't know the type of it until you check.
For conversions, though, there are lots of methods like toInteger and toFloat in Java to do a conversion and generate an object of a new type with the same relative value. In JavaScript there are also conversion methods, but they generate new objects too.
Your code should actally not look very much different, regardless if you are using a staticly typed language or not. Just because you can change the data type of a variable in a dynamically typed language, doesn't mean that it is a good idea to do so.
In VBScript, for example, hungarian notation is often used to specify the preferred data type of a variable. That way you can easily spot if the code is mixing types. (This was not the original use of hungarian notation, but it's pretty useful.)
By keeping to the same data type, you avoid situations where it's hard to tell what the code actually does, and situations where the code simply doesn't work properly. For example:
Dim id
id = Request.QueryString("id") ' this variable is now a string
If id = "42" Then
id = 142 ' sometimes turned into a number
End If
If id > 100 Then ' will not work properly for strings
Using hungarian notation you can spot code that is mixing types, like:
lngId = Request.QueryString("id") ' putting a string in a numeric variable
strId = 42 ' putting a number in a string variable