&gt; I think they do have a well-accepted definition [...] [You] shouldn&#x27;t confuse your dislike for them for the absence of a well-accepted definition that&#x27;s widely used in computer science literature.<p>Just upthread, you said:<p>&gt; The notions of &quot;strong&quot; and &quot;weak&quot; typing have never been particularly well-defined<p>And the Wikipedia article you cited (<a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;Strong_and_weak_typing" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;Strong_and_weak_typing</a>) says:<p>&gt; These terms do not have a precise definition<p>The Wikipedia article also says:<p>&gt; A number of different language design decisions have been referred to as evidence of &quot;strong&quot; or &quot;weak&quot; typing. In fact, many of these are more accurately understood as the presence or absence of type safety, memory safety, static type-checking, or dynamic type-checking.<p>Also on Wikipedia (<a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;Type_system" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;Type_system</a>):<p>&gt; Languages are often colloquially referred to as &quot;strongly typed&quot; or &quot;weakly typed&quot;. In fact, there is no universally accepted definition of what these terms mean. In general, there are more precise terms to represent the differences between type systems that lead people to call them &quot;strong&quot; or &quot;weak&quot;.<p>...which is exactly what I&#x27;m saying in this entire thread.<p>It&#x27;s very strange to me how you seem really seem to want other people to be on board with your particular interpretation of what everybody (even you, 13 hours ago) agrees is not a very well-defined concept.