Yes. Types are good. Numeric operations have specific hardware behavior that depends on whether you’re using floating-point or not. Having exclusively floating-point semantics is wildly wrong for a programming language.
There’s a proliferation of dynamically and/or softly typed languages. There are very few, if any, truly untyped languages. (POSIX shells come close, though internally they have at least two types, strings and string-arrays, even if the array type isn’t directly usable without non-POSIX features.)
TCL & CMake are fully stringly typed. Both pretty terrible languages (though TCL can at least claim to be a clever hack that was taken far too seriously).
Yes. Types are good. Numeric operations have specific hardware behavior that depends on whether you’re using floating-point or not. Having exclusively floating-point semantics is wildly wrong for a programming language.
Opinions vary on this topic, apparently. There’s a proliferation of untyped languages.
There’s a proliferation of dynamically and/or softly typed languages. There are very few, if any, truly untyped languages. (POSIX shells come close, though internally they have at least two types, strings and string-arrays, even if the array type isn’t directly usable without non-POSIX features.)
TCL & CMake are fully stringly typed. Both pretty terrible languages (though TCL can at least claim to be a clever hack that was taken far too seriously).
Oof, yeah, those count. The fact that CMake was best-in-class when I wrote C++ professionally was…awful.