>>55
Way to talk out of both sides of your mouth. First it is poorly defined (because, well, there's no consensus, which is an
interesting definition of ``being well-defined''), and second it is strongly typed anyway. There are words for such arguments but a lesson in vocabulary will not further the conversation.
Sorry, but C++ isn't a strongly typed language. C is barely typed at all, and that's only if we follow the most trivial definition of "typing" to mean something like "there are keywords for types." C++ improved this not at all, because
of course even though everything C is evil and wrong and dangerous, it should be compatible with C anyway.
I'm sure if one's interest is in defending C++ as a ``strongly typed language with support for object-oriented programming'' then one could come up with all matter of snake oil to rub on the warts. But those of us without any particular attachment to C++ can see plainly that C++'s types are approximately comments that are read by a compiler and little more. This is due strictly to its C roots, and C gets it from trying to be something like a portable assembler, and assemblers aren't generally typed for good reason. (Though there are of course typed assembly languages. For good reason.)
It is shameful that languages without explicit type annotation have better behavior than a language with it. Shameful. To then turn around and actually call such a language ``strongly typed'' for
whatever non-trivial meaning is absolutely disgusting.