It's not that I disagree, with any of your points. I think they're all valid. I do think most people use the term strongly typed, where they mean statically -an

It's not that I disagree, with any of your points. I think they're all valid. I do think most people use the term strongly typed, where they mean statically -and- strongly typed. I personally don't fret about it unless we get into specific details about these notions. I do especially like your (d), which many people often overlook when designing programs. An example would be to use a String as the Id in a DB, but not wrap the String in a stronger type to represent the Id, thus not getting the advantage of static type checking by the compiler. So there are definitely areas where this conversation can lead to better advantages of different languages. For example, in Rust declaring a type to be a `struct Id(String);` would cause no overhead to be associated with the Id in terms of memory allocation to that of just a String. Not all languages can say that, thus we could also get into a fun conversation about the overhead associated with the type system itself. All fun topics.