[bryanrasmussen]

not all dynamically typed languages are the same, Ruby is strongly typed and JavaScript is generally described as a weakly typed language.

[cies]

The word "strong" is not well defined in this context. But usually it is used for languages like Haskell, Idris, PureScript and Elm.

Ruby does not do as many automatic casts as JS. In this regard it may be seen as "stronger".

[straight-shoota]

Ruby matches this definition: https://www.wikiwand.com/en/Strong_typing

Crystal has static type checking though.

[sarchertech]

Strong is frequently used incorrectly and as such the meaning has been diluted.

But used the way the OP is using it, strong vs weak is different from static vs dynamic.

[Gigachad]

I’d hardly call ruby strongly typed. There is basically no way to verify anything statically so almost all issues show up in run time. Updating Rails or any gems on a production system is a nightmare where the only option is to have 20,000 unit tests and then hope nothing blows up when you release it.

[matthewmacleod]

You have confused strong typing and static typing.

[mrkeen]

Some of us need the latter for the former.

What would you say some of the strengths of Ruby's type system are?