This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computer science, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Computer science related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
It looks like there's a lot of OR on this page. Since strong/weak typing doesn't have a single accepted definition, all examples should be backed by reliable sources, but most aren't. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 15:11, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
I don't think any researcher would use "weak" and "strong" type terminology nowdays. Ushkin N (talk) 00:57, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
I've been researching the "etymology" of the terms strong and weak typing since a while. See my results so far at User:Ruud Koot/Computer science/Strong and weak typing. There isn't a universally accepted definition of those terms, but there are a small number of definitions that are often used. While contemporary researchers would rarely use these terms in a formal sense, they are still used in more colloquial speech. I think that a well-written article on this topic would be come too large to merge in its entirety into Type system (which should be an overview article, given the size of the topic). —Ruud 10:58, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
However, we can link them in "See also" section or mention in the article from time to time. But not to crate paragraphs for these 2 words everywhere. Ushkin N (talk) 12:35, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
I think people shouldn't be using the terms strong and weakly typed, but the (unfortunate) fact is that they do. And Wikipedia is descriptive, not prescriptive, so we should discuss them. I think the section Type_system#"Strong" and "weak" type systems is fine as is. It briefly states there is no universal definition and then refers to this article for the details. I think a lot can be said here about the many non-universally accepted definitions that have been given to these terms. The section Programming_language#Weak_and_strong_typing, is more problematic. It should probably read the same as Type_system#"Strong" and "weak" type systems. —Ruud 12:49, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
Criticism these 2 terms was never discussed or explained with sources.
Also any claim about "weak" or "strong" typed languages are hardly sourced since we cannot trace their definitions!
Humans can use many meaningless words, but that doesn't mean we should use these words to describe topic. Ushkin N (talk) 13:24, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
BTW, any definition that ignores hardware/software implementation is incomplete and lies: it is only good as "theory".
OR was formally proven. I don't any formal proofs in Barbara Liskov publications. Ushkin N (talk) 17:47, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
Even if we can trace them, doesn't mean they are true. Many medal holders made imprecise statements, especially when field was rapidly developing. None of physics I know threat Newton laws as precise model of the real world, but that's off-topic here. Ushkin N (talk) 17:44, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
See WP:NOTTRUTH. There is no requirement that Wikipedia article are limited to describing "mathematically precise" definitions. —Ruud 18:27, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
WP:NOTTRUTH says you can include imprecise and verifiable to Wikipedia. But nothing prevents me from stating that something is incomplete or was never formally proven. WP:TRUTHMATTERS. Ushkin N (talk) 19:28, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
Type conversion#Implicit type conversion says (specifically WRT C-like languages) "Implicit type conversion, also known as coercion, is an automatic type conversion by the compiler", which contradicts Aahz's definition.
In case the former definition is the one usually used (i am not an expert), i think that the reference to Aahz's example should be removed. Orenmn (talk) 15:44, 26 October 2017 (UTC)