I consulted Wikipedia and other sources and placed the term they used to categorize these languages beside the language name; it wasn't my bar - I use the colle

I consulted Wikipedia and other sources and placed the term they used to categorize these languages beside the language name; it wasn't my bar - I use the collection of symbols I use in the positions I use because others chose to do so. I shared the trivial creation of type errors in Python to help you notice why others oppose your definition and wish you to adopt more precise terms. I don't disagree with you that there is imprecision - comparative language is always with respect to a reference and without a reference specification it is meaningless. The deeper point is that you can't complain about imprecision while failing to do contrast. It would be like complaining that weight 100 doesn't tell you whether someone has a weight. Of course it doesn't. Units needs to be included for measures for them to meaningful. That doesn't mean the concept of units is unsound. It means you need to specify weight more thoroughly to avoid ambiguity. Really think about what you said and it compiles to something akin to: type_strength(sample(python_programs, size=1, heuristic=representative_of_claim)) < undefined In contrast my statement compiles to something like: type_strength(sample(python_program, size=2, heuristic=represenative_of_claim_simple_programs_first) > type_strength(sample(javascript_program, size=2, heuristic=represenative_of_claim_simple_programs_first)) There are a bunch of problems with my approach. We can pick it apart endlessly. It is positivism. It is low sample size. The heuristic is biased. That I reported it was subject to bias. `type_strength` isn't well defined. Neither is `>`. It is terrible in so many respects.