Comparison of type systems
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article needs additional citations for verification. (September 2014) (Learn how and when to remove this template message) |
 |
It has been suggested that this article be merged into Comparison of programming languages by type system. (Discuss) Proposed since May 2016. |
 |
This article has no lead section. (October 2016) (Learn how and when to remove this template message) |
| Programming language | static / dynamic | strong / weak | safety | nominative / structural |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Ada | static | strong | safe | nominative |
| Assembly language | none | strong | unsafe | structural |
| APL | dynamic | weak | safe | nominative |
| BASIC | static | weak | safe | nominative |
| C | static | weak | unsafe | nominative |
| C++ | static | strong | unsafe | nominative |
| C#[1] | static | strong | both | nominative |
| Cayenne | dependent | strong | safe | structural |
| Clipper | dynamic | weak | safe | duck |
| D | static | strong | both[2] | nominative |
| Delphi | static | strong | safe | nominative |
| E | dynamic | strong | safe | nominative + duck |
| Eiffel | static | strong | safe | nominative |
| Erlang | dynamic | strong | safe | nominative |
| F# | static | strong | safe | nominative |
| Fortran | static | strong | safe | nominative |
| Go | static | strong | safe | structural |
| Groovy | dynamic | strong | safe | duck |
| Haskell | static | strong | safe | nominative + structural |
| Io | dynamic | strong | safe | duck |
| Java | static | strong | safe | nominative |
| JavaScript | dynamic | weak | safe | duck |
| Julia | dynamic + static | strong | both? A usable subset is safe.[3] | See manual[4] |
| Lisp | dynamic | strong | safe | structural |
| Lua[5] | dynamic | weak | safe | structural |
| ML | static | strong | safe | structural |
| Objective-C[6] | static+dynamic | strong | unsafe | nominative |
| Pascal | static | strong | safe | nominative |
| Perl 1–5 | dynamic | weak | safe | nominative |
| Perl 6[7] | hybrid | hybrid | safe | duck |
| PHP | dynamic | weak | safe | ? |
| Pike | static+dynamic | strong | safe | structural |
| Python | dynamic | strong | safe | duck |
| Ruby | dynamic | strong | safe | duck |
| Scala[8] | static | strong | safe | nominative + structural |
| Scheme | dynamic | strong | safe | nominative |
| Smalltalk | dynamic | strong | safe | duck |
| Swift | static | strong | safe | nominative |
| Visual Basic | hybrid | hybrid | safe | nominative |
| Windows PowerShell | hybrid | hybrid | safe | duck |
| xHarbour | dynamic | weak | safe | duck |
References[edit]
- ^ The C basis is unchanged. 3.0 has hybrid typing with Anonymous Types. Can be both unsafe and safe with use of 'unsafe' functions and code blocks.
- ^ D's philosophy is: safe by default with unsafe "backdoors". D also supports @safe functions that provably can't corrupt memory at the cost of disabling some of the unsafe language constructs.
- ^ "RFC / Discussion: Security and Julia".
Julia code can do anything C code can (e.g. you can work with raw unchecked pointers if you want to), so it is equivalent to C code in terms of security. i.e. you should not run untrusted Julia code, unless you use OS-level sandboxing.
- ^ docs.julialang.org/en/release-0.5/manual/conversion-and-promotion/
- ^ Variables can change type with the use of metatables.
- ^ Applies to the Objective-C extension only.
- ^ Not yet released.
- ^ Scala supports structural types through runtime reflection on the JVM
