Sure, if you want you can subvert the type system in a way that you couldn't with an ML or Haskell, but its much harder to do it accidently.
If you can subvert the system, then it's not strong. It's pretty much impossible to subvert Perl's type system, except using operations that are valid in any programming language (as I demonstrated eariler in the thread). The fact that Perl has a limited number of types is irrelevent to any argument over its strength.
You could say that C/Java/etc. has a more useful type system. However, because of its lack of strength, I don't think Pascal-derived type systems are useful for showing program correctness. They are only good for providing hints to the compiler. Which is really all they were designed for.
I lurk on Lambda, and have read parts of the flame war^H^H^H^H threads you mention. There's a lot of material there to go through.
"There is no shame in being self-taught, only in not trying to learn in the first place." -- Atrus, Myst: The Book of D'ni.
In reply to Re^6: "strong typing" is potentially ambiguous
by hardburn
in thread (Completely OT) - Hero(i)n programming language on Slashdot
by dragonchild
| For: | Use: | ||
| & | & | ||
| < | < | ||
| > | > | ||
| [ | [ | ||
| ] | ] |