[masak]

This reply is a good example of how "strongly typed" ends up meaning practically nothing -- except possibly "the kind of type system I prefer".

I once attended a talk where the speaker had identified half a dozen axes that papers or projects were calling "strong"/"weak" with relation to type systems. Some were not even consistent with themselves, switching definitions halfway.

Type systems are tools, whose formal properties can be described and analyzed in precise detail. Unfortunately, that kind of precision is hard, so semantically empty words like "strong" get used a lot instead. This message is intended to raise awareness about that fact.

[FpUser]

Well one can analyze that type systems are till the hell freezes over. I personally do not care as this precise knowledge (assuming it is formalized and exists) is of zero value to me. When I want to walk I just do. I do not dwell on the details of the walking process.

Anyways most likely you do know well what I meant. JS vs C++ for example.

[masak]

Neither the type system of C++ nor the type system of TS is sound, in the sense of "the type system rejects all incorrect programs".

If what you meant by "strong" is just "you can declare types on variables", then both TS and C++ qualify as strong, but JS doesn't.

Your use of the word is based on feeling, not fact. Which was my point.

[FpUser]

Typescript compiles down to Javascript. And this is the problem. When I say uint16_t in C++ I know how it will be kept in RAM and what I can do with it, how I can pack things together etc. etc. TS lacks this abilities. You can play with terminology all you want but it does not change simple facts.

[kaba0]

You could (probably can) compile C++ to JS. What will that be? In the end, code is just data operating on data with no semantics. Your uint16_t is only meaningful to the compiler, the same way as TypeScript types are (with a few caveat).