This reply is a good example of how "strongly typed" ends up meaning practically nothing -- except possibly "the kind of type system I prefer".
I once attended a talk where the speaker had identified half a dozen axes that papers or projects were calling "strong"/"weak" with relation to type systems. Some were not even consistent with themselves, switching definitions halfway.
Type systems are tools, whose formal properties can be described and analyzed in precise detail. Unfortunately, that kind of precision is hard, so semantically empty words like "strong" get used a lot instead. This message is intended to raise awareness about that fact.
I once attended a talk where the speaker had identified half a dozen axes that papers or projects were calling "strong"/"weak" with relation to type systems. Some were not even consistent with themselves, switching definitions halfway.
Type systems are tools, whose formal properties can be described and analyzed in precise detail. Unfortunately, that kind of precision is hard, so semantically empty words like "strong" get used a lot instead. This message is intended to raise awareness about that fact.