> Strong and weak typing are poorly defined terms. I work as a research assistant in a PL research lab and have talked with many PL researchers who have been i

> Strong and weak typing are poorly defined terms. I work as a research assistant in a PL research lab and have talked with many PL researchers who have been in the field for a long time. They all use the terminology consistently, and it all lines up with what lvh has been saying. I agree that the terms are poorly defined, because there's not a single definition which can be used as a criterion for evaluation. But that Python is more strongly typed than C seems to be a common sentiment, at least among people that I explicitly asked about it. Much C code practically relies on the weakness of the type system to function, whereas Python cannot be deceived in the same way. > I’m not sure why evidence that “strongly typed” python in practice suffers from all sorts of typing errors that “weakly typed” C/C++ avoids is not relevant to your point. Typing errors are evidence of a strong typing system... > I also don’t understand why you dislike the string examples Your string example relied on the weak typing of C to work. The conversions are implicit, aren't they? This is a hallmark of a weakly-typed language.