> That isn't to say that the definition of "strongly typed" is subjective; we can find agreement on what scale "strong types" live upon. We cannot say "X is str

> That isn't to say that the definition of "strongly typed" is subjective; we can find agreement on what scale "strong types" live upon. We cannot say "X is strongly typed", we can only say "X is more/less/very/not very strongly typed". I agree with your overall argument, but in this conclusion I subtly disagree: it implies that we could come up with some linear quantitative scale from 0 to 1 of how strongly typed something is. I don't think we can, it's a composite of qualitative features that defies that approach. It might even be a somewhat rock-paper-scissors like kind of thing where also we cannot really value each feature because their positive or negative value greatly depends on the presence or absence of other features.