4 ms·

Why, specifically? It's commonly described as strongly typed and I'm not aware of an argument against that.

• Dylan16807 2y ago
  Is the specific reason not clear? You just said it. The variables are untyped. Strong versus weak is not super solidly defined as referring only to values and not variables.
  • kstrauser 2y ago
    > Is the specific reason not clear? Correct. > Strong versus weak is not super solidly defined as referring only to values and not variables. You're right. It's not super solidly defined as referring only to variables and not values, either. If dynamic typing is the same as weak typing, there'd be no point in having both phrases.
    • Dylan16807 2y ago
      >> Is the specific reason not clear? > Correct. Is it still unclear with the clarification you didn't quote? I can't tell if I need to explain more or not. > It's not super solidly defined as referring only to variables and not values, either. I didn't mean to suggest it was. > If dynamic typing is the same as weak typing, there'd be no point in having both phrases. It's not the same. There's a bunch of things referred to as "weak".