Strong dynamic types enable different, often inspiring ways to solve problems well, while strong static types enable well-defined, often inspiring ways to solve problems reliably.
Weak dynamic types disable certainty about the correctness of any solution to your problems, while weak static types encourage certainty about things that are in fact unknowable.
These wars over static vs. dynamic types use the rhetoric of strong vs. weak types against the rhetoric of productivity vs. bureaucracy, but ignore the fact many statically typed systems are weakly typed and the fact many dynamically typed systems are bureaucratic.
Then, of course, there are the indefensible languages. They're in a class of their own, where being weak and bureaucratic would be an improvement.
Now watch people who read this get into fights about which languages those are (if anyone bothers to read this).
Now watch people who read this get into fights about which languages those are (if anyone bothers to read this).
