When it comes to that precise subject, I happen to have already done so and to know the count rather well. Stupidity is stupidity, even if it's on the python.org wiki.
> or explain why you think someone is wrong
I did so. Twice if not thrice. There is no well-defined and shared — let alone formal — semantics (and meaning) to the strong/weak "axis", every other person has his own pet definition of it[0] and the definitions are quite often incompatible if not downright opposed.
It is therefore garbage and utterly useless to communication.
> instead of assuming that anyone saying something you disagree with has no idea what they are talking about.
It's not "anyone saying something [I] disagree with", just "anyone using the strong/weak axis as if it actually existed".
[0] From "no memory corruption" to "no possible runtime error" through "no UB", "dynamically typed" and all sorts of takes on "no implicit conversions", usually in order to declare one's pet language is "strong" and somebody else's is "weak". I've seen all of C, C++, Python, Javascript, Perl, Java, Tcl, Lua, Smalltalk or Pascal declared both strong and weak by various (usually different) people.
When it comes to that precise subject, I happen to have already done so and to know the count rather well. Stupidity is stupidity, even if it's on the python.org wiki.
> or explain why you think someone is wrong
I did so. Twice if not thrice. There is no well-defined and shared — let alone formal — semantics (and meaning) to the strong/weak "axis", every other person has his own pet definition of it[0] and the definitions are quite often incompatible if not downright opposed.
It is therefore garbage and utterly useless to communication.
> instead of assuming that anyone saying something you disagree with has no idea what they are talking about.
It's not "anyone saying something [I] disagree with", just "anyone using the strong/weak axis as if it actually existed".
[0] From "no memory corruption" to "no possible runtime error" through "no UB", "dynamically typed" and all sorts of takes on "no implicit conversions", usually in order to declare one's pet language is "strong" and somebody else's is "weak". I've seen all of C, C++, Python, Javascript, Perl, Java, Tcl, Lua, Smalltalk or Pascal declared both strong and weak by various (usually different) people.