Yeah. And all three of us are outside of my "most programmers", which is unsurprising, because we are reading comments on a post about type systems, which is a

Yeah. And all three of us are outside of my "most programmers", which is unsurprising, because we are reading comments on a post about type systems, which is a weird thing to do. I encourage you to go ask some random C++ programmers, perhaps a bunch of EA employees, whether C or PHP is more "strongly typed", and see what they say. Note that because of void pointers, I believe that C fits your definition of "weakly typed", and as far as I know, PHP does not fit your definition (and btw I agree with you about what steveklabnik intended, though we may both be wrong). And yeah, we're primarily disagreeing about what classes of people agree on what terminology. This is why I agree with chrisseaton in the cousin-thread, that there is no good definition... people assume other people know what "strong" means, and yet they mostly disagree. And I'd like to repeat that as far as I can tell, if you survey the type-theorist literature, I think that type theorists a) have mostly stopped using those stupid vague labels, and b) back when they did use them, each author used them for something different and repeat my entreaty for evidence to the contrary.