> Sure, but I was talking about the expressiveness of the type system
Expressiveness can be described as expressiveness. I'm not sure why we would need to use strong/weak as an alternative to that term. IMO, it makes the strong/weak terminology less useful by tying it to this concept, which is only really relevant in some languages.
> I was trying to use reductio ad absurdum to question the validity of your definitions. I expected "Haskell is weakly typed" and "Rust is weakly typed" to be self-evidently false propositions.
I'm not sure if this is implying that we disagree on something that you still see to be self evident, or it's meant to explain why you included that and you no longer think it's a position worth holding?
In any case, I think it's worth clarifying that I didn't call Rust weakly typed, I said it hda weakened it's type constraints in a select few cases to increase expressiveness, where it did not cost in safety. (Constraints because everywhere you put strong/weak I think you can append constraints to be more explicit). I don't think it's controversial to say "Rust weakened constraints the type system imposed in some cases where it could be done safely, such as in iterable objects implicitly being seen as iterators in some cases", as that's clearly a bit less constrained than it could be.
Expressiveness is always relative to what a system is meant to express. The purpose of a type system isn't to write your actual programs in it. You use a type system to make sure that programs written in another language (a term language) make sense. So a type system is expressive to the extent it accurately captures the distinction between programs that make sense and programs that don't. (Of course, Goedel tells us that no decidable type system can perfectly capture this distinction.)
As for strong/weak, I don't think the concept is very useful without a clear technical definition in the first place.
> As for strong/weak, I don't think the concept is very useful without a clear technical definition in the first place.
Well, it's definitely not very useful in our case. ;) In all seriousness, as I said previously, I think it's useful for conveying a mixed bag of things to people that aren't very well versed in the specifics. If the person knows something about type systems, you should naturally have more specific language to fall back on to express your intent better.
In any case, I think we are way past of this being worthwhile to continue. I think we've plumbed the depths of this topic, whether we agree or not.
Expressiveness can be described as expressiveness. I'm not sure why we would need to use strong/weak as an alternative to that term. IMO, it makes the strong/weak terminology less useful by tying it to this concept, which is only really relevant in some languages.
> I was trying to use reductio ad absurdum to question the validity of your definitions. I expected "Haskell is weakly typed" and "Rust is weakly typed" to be self-evidently false propositions.
I'm not sure if this is implying that we disagree on something that you still see to be self evident, or it's meant to explain why you included that and you no longer think it's a position worth holding?
In any case, I think it's worth clarifying that I didn't call Rust weakly typed, I said it hda weakened it's type constraints in a select few cases to increase expressiveness, where it did not cost in safety. (Constraints because everywhere you put strong/weak I think you can append constraints to be more explicit). I don't think it's controversial to say "Rust weakened constraints the type system imposed in some cases where it could be done safely, such as in iterable objects implicitly being seen as iterators in some cases", as that's clearly a bit less constrained than it could be.