Not sure why everyone's being so cryptic, so it's probably me that's the confused one. Let me try to guess:
"There is a wikiality driven split in the English language.
Camp A says that a strongly typed language prohibits immoral implicit conversions, such as "1" + 1 => 2 or even more grotesquely, "1000" == "1e3" => true.
Camp B says that a strongly typed language gives each value a type, and that all operations which do not have well-defined semantics will signal an error rather than allow operations to execute which assume incorrect typing.
Camp A currently owns the articles "weak typing" and most of the article "strong typing". Camp B is settling for teaching the controversy in "Strong vs Weak typing" and putting passive-aggressive little notes on all the articles that Camp A's view is mistaken.
"
Did I get it right? If so, camp B is correct and camp A are being dicks about terminology that they're getting wrong.
"There is a wikiality driven split in the English language.
Camp A says that a strongly typed language prohibits immoral implicit conversions, such as "1" + 1 => 2 or even more grotesquely, "1000" == "1e3" => true.
Camp B says that a strongly typed language gives each value a type, and that all operations which do not have well-defined semantics will signal an error rather than allow operations to execute which assume incorrect typing.
Camp A currently owns the articles "weak typing" and most of the article "strong typing". Camp B is settling for teaching the controversy in "Strong vs Weak typing" and putting passive-aggressive little notes on all the articles that Camp A's view is mistaken. "
Did I get it right? If so, camp B is correct and camp A are being dicks about terminology that they're getting wrong.