This
level-5 vital article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
I'm starting this article now that type system is moved out of the way. Type is an abstract concept of type systems but data type is a concrete type of data. While Type system gives an overview on issues on designing a system, this article can give an overview on different kinds of data types used in practise. The topic relates to data structure (an article in need of cleanup) and some stuff in there about the building blocks could be dealt with here. The way I see it, a node of a data structure or data without smaller operable structure is a data type. -- TuukkaH 10:46, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
Sorry, but the above paragraph (and also the current Overview section of the article) implies that 'integer' is a data type, but 'array of integer' is not a data type. And that would be wrong. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.16.232.122 ( talk) 17:34, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
The C++ entry has links to datatype (no space) and sub-entries on strong/weak, safe/unsafe, nominative/structural, and static/dynamic typing. These links lead now to the article data type but these entries are missing.
Is this by design or mistake?
Liastnir 14:24, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
The compound word "datatype" is sometimes used in place of "data type". It is not clear whether this is an "official" new word or simply the product of us making up new words as we go along. But, it works. 198.102.62.250 01:21, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
I know I am almost on a lost crusade here but I still believe it to be important to mentions concept of choosing a range needed and let the actual hardware representation to the compiler. And I would like to go further on this as this concept gives are real win/win situation:
type Range_Type is range -5 .. 10;
means the same on any CPU or language implementation.The concept is so elegant and powerful that it is a shame that is almost forgotten (AFAIK Pascal introduced the notion in the 1970th). So I believe it is important to mention so "Byte, Word, Integer, etc. pp" are not "god given" (Independent of which god you believe in) but what they really are: An implementation detail for which they are alternatives.
See wikibooks:Ada_Programming/Types/range or wikibooks:Ada_Programming/Types/digits for a syntax example.
-- Krischik T 12:19, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
>>Who told you that these are always the ranges. These are very naive values. Moreover, who says that one byte has to be 8 bits? Haven't you heard of 9 bit byte? Please don't destroy the charm of wikipedia. I have already seen novices writing on the topics they don't completely know of. Please stop this non-sense.
Right now, these are both empty sections with 'main article' links in them. Usually you see those prior to at least a short summary of the subject in question, so can someone write that up? Or simply move them to the 'see also' section? -- 124.177.141.85 15:32, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
The article at Dynamic data typing is very short and it seems to me it would be better as a section in this article.-- NHSavage 21:19, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
I think the term "Real numbers" is a misuse in any system that does not provide symbolic algebra: No floating-point type can truly represent Pi or even 1/3. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Medinoc ( talk • contribs) 09:25, 14 May 2007 (UTC).
I moved materials about primitive types here to primitive type, since those are actually more concrete than discussion give there. The consequence of this is that, now, the article is basically a disambig page. On the one hand, this may not be a bad thing, since now type system talks about what data types, how they are used etc. On the other hand, I can't see the point of the existence of this article. I am unwilling to make editorial proposals, but just wanted to point this out. -- Taku 05:38, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
If look at the source cited in our article on data type, you'll see how misleading it is. It changed "Data type as set of values with set of operations", which is a topic amongst others in type theory (different models exists) to "A data type [...] is a set of values and the operations on those values" excluding all other models.
The concrete implementation of types (as done in implementations of programing languages) is a model of a type. But not all types can be modeled by sets. Function types are a problem. See for instance Dana Scott's lattices.
Pcap ping 10:00, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
jkbn,m — Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.97.16.134 ( talk) 09:37, 25 December 2014 (UTC)
erw rewr ew re rwe r e r er e — Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.97.16.134 ( talk) 09:39, 25 December 2014 (UTC)
It was misplaced at Type system, please merge it with Data type:
A type of types is a kind. Kinds appear explicitly in typeful programming, such as a type constructor in the Haskell language.
Types fall into several broad categories:
I am trying to understand why is the definition of "abstract type" used in the section "abstract data type".
see: /info/en/?search=Abstract_data_type
and
/info/en/?search=Abstract_type
I have been two days trying to figure out the diferences between and this particular section seems to use the definitions simultaneously.:
"Any type that does not specify an implementation is an abstract data type"
And another thing is that after the first dot in the same section it says:
" For instance, a stack (which is an abstract type) can be implemented as an array (a contiguous block of memory containing multiple values), or as a linked list (a set of non-contiguous memory blocks linked by pointers)."
and after that it is in the little list of abstract data types. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Elcarlis54 ( talk • contribs) 16:16, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
I can't give any suggestions because i don't know much of it
Unfortunately, the article Abstract data type currently is so, that one cannot really draw from it. I thus turned the section towards Algebraic specification, which historically is the center piece of ADT research and gave more appropriate examples. In particular, the data type stack is at least misleading. Though it is ubiquitously in ADT literature, it is considered there truly as data, i.e. something that cannot be modified, meaning data vs. state or machine. -- Cobalt pen ( talk) 15:43, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
Please see the very first comment on this talk page, which sets the article's conceptual border. While i agree with the limit, which substantially helped it to shape the article now comes out to have some unwanted consequences.
Most particular, Type (computer science) is a link to this article. Thus the narrow range positively wanted here is extended to a broader topic.
An immediate consequence was, that the section "function types" here was never filled in for at least eight years, rightly because functions are not data but actually the article's delimitation.
Excluded by this setting are not only any non-data types like those for modules, classes, etc., but also types in the scope of type theory, which is a topic common research in both computer science and mathematics. As a consequence with link, WP currently presents that CS would have a very narrow concept of type, which is factually untrue.
IMO, the general concept of type in CS is shared with that in type theory. So we now have some Type (computer science) which falsely ends here and some Type (type theory), which in part, pulls in another direction. Additionally, CS has created masses of concrete Type systems over times.
The issue cannot be solved in this article, but is a rather a topic of the current structure of the related lemmata in WP.
I tried to resolve it the following way:
Unfortunately, WP appears to be very sensitive against structural changes. What happened was, that the change was almost instantly and completely reverted. Parts by another author who appears to be concerned about stub articles and some automated script.
As i think, that the current structure is wrong and unfortunate, and the current link of Type (computer science) ends here, i believe the issue can be best resolved here. -- Cobalt pen ( talk) 09:02, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
What is data type 2409:4050:E8E:112B:46E6:7FA3:597F:C170 ( talk) 17:00, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
@ Murray Langton Per primitive type, only machine types are primitive, and enumerations are not machine types hence are not primitive. Although enums might implemented using primitive types, e.g. in C, in most languages they are distinct types, e.g. in Java an enum value is implemented as a unique value of a new class. Per its lead, an enumerated type is a degenerate tagged union of unit type. Tagged unions are composite, hence enums are too. Mathnerd314159 ( talk) 21:52, 10 August 2022 (UTC)