Article written like it’s someone that just discovered types even though a majority of the programming world said to use types for decades…

Yeah, how dare the author discover something that they did not know before and get so excited about it that they wanted to write an article about what they learned! That is a completely inappropriate thing to do with a personal blog.

Edit: Finally figured out how to link the image to the original comic. (I needed to embed the image link inside of another link.)

And here I naively had been wondering before reading this article what was so inherently privacy invading about using fingerprints to unlock devices…

To clarify: I am saying that it is not “normal” that the type you get back out is not only not necessarily the type that you put in, but may be different depending on the value that you put in. Put another way, sqlite is strongly typed unless you mistakenly thought that type affinities by themselves made it be strictly typed, in which case it becomes neither strictly nor strictly typed.

Strongly typed is orthogonal to strictly typed, so these two properties alone are not contradictory.

However, it is a bit unsettling that, if a column has an INTEGER type affinity, and you try to put a string in it, then the string is implicitly converted to an integer if it represents an integer and just stored silently as-is otherwise.

Hmm, well… I have never murdered anyone, not even once! Is that good enough for their Code of Ethics?

You are making the extremely incorrect presumption that I am unfamiliar with Lisp and how macros work. What is unclear to me is how you specifically think that arbitrarily rewriting code at macro expansion time is exactly equivalent to arbitrarily manipulating the stack at runtime.

Yeah, there is nothing more annoying in general when starting to type text into a co-workers desktop than having random letters show up rather than having the cursor move around.

nano -> vim

This one is extremely consistent with the others because once you have made the switch, it becomes harder to escape.

Perhaps you could explain exactly what you mean?

In Forth, though, the number of results pushed to the stack after an execution of a word could be a function of the input rather than a single value or even a fixed number of values.

Likewise, the number of arguments that a word pops from the stack could be a function of a value pushed earlier to the stack.

No. Roughly speaking, functional languages implicitly manage the stack for you, whereas Forth requires you to manage it explicitly.

1. Develop your project on a temporary filesystem until it has the desired functionality.
2. Move the compiled binary to a persistent filesystem.
3. Reboot.