Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Cedar101 (talk | contribs) at 09:43, 5 September 2017 (-{{nom}}). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

This article needs additional citations for verification. Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. Find sources: "Comparison of type systems" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR (September 2014) (Learn how and when to remove this 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. Please improve this article by adding one in your own words. (October 2016) (Learn how and when to remove this message)

References

1. 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.
2. 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.
3. "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.
4. docs.julialang.org/en/release-0.5/manual/conversion-and-promotion/
5. Variables can change type with the use of metatables.
6. Applies to the Objective-C extension only.
7. Not yet released.
8. Scala supports structural types through runtime reflection on the JVM

• Articles to be merged from May 2016
• Type systems
• Programming language comparisons