[epolanski]

This statement is quite questionable starting from the fact that there is no definition for what strong typing is.

Care to provide what you mean?

Strict TS won't compile pretty much any type-unsafe operation.

It's not perfect, the standard libraries are a bit too unsafe type wise, exceptions are untyped and need Either/Result-like data types to be handled but it's an extremely powerful language if you know it and it's ecosystem.

Most people though don't even bother reading the docs and can't tell you what a mapped type is or what is a disjointed union, etc.

[DarkNova6]

If you are in a completely self-defined world, then yes you can trust the compiler. But I once built a react component which was called from library code and it simply did not adhere to the method signature (this was for a material UI table extension).

As soon as you have third party code calling your methods all bets are off. It could be JS calling your methods, or there simply is a hidden cast somewhere.

This is the moment that you realize that type annotations really are just a compile-time fiction, much like Python. At least in my definition, this is weak typing as the variable is physically capable of changing to any type at runtime, despite its type annotations.

[Shog9]

TBF, this can also be true in C++, C#, probably most languages that can interoperate with other systems not written 100% in the same language + same runtime. After a while, you just get used to not trusting anything at the boundary - types are for your convenience and your internal logic, nothing more.

[DarkNova6]

You are talking about something entirely different. Having weird interop is one thing. But having your internal state compromised because the language does not perform runtime checks is something entirely different.

In case of C++ this would lead to desastrous memory corruption. If all data is dynamic you can't have a safe program as data on the stack must be monomorphic or you corrupt nearby memory.

Naturally, you can defend against hostile input via excessive defensive programming (asserting against nulls, asserting against wrong types etc.). Or you simply use a strong static typed language.

[Shog9]

Yes, that's why I used C++ as an example. It's very easy to create a scenario where the memory layout your logic (and your type-checker) assume exists just... doesn't. Core dumps from the field with "impossible" values, vtables missing entries, etc.