> Generally, a strongly typed language has stricter typing rules at compile time, which implies that errors and exceptions are more likely to happen during compilation. Most of these rules affect variable assignment, function return values, procedure arguments and function calling. Dynamically typed languages (where type checking happens at run time) can also be strongly typed. Note that in dynamically typed languages, values have types, not variables.
Just out of curiosity, exactly what do you even think weakly typed could mean by your own definition of it?
No need to address the other points, because we're talking about anecdotes and not scientific data. Yes, I'm using a single data point as an example about a feeling I have to justify my opinion.
Am I to believe that you hold every other language to this same standard? A single maintainer of a reasonably popular project makes one boneheaded decision in a release, and that's enough reason to denounce the entire ecosystem?
> That said, strong types can be a godsend for catching accidental breaks...
Ruby is a strongly typed language.
You probably mean static types, but even that wouldn't have helped here. This was a behavioral change and did not affect any of the (implicit, in Ruby) type signatures of the function. It would not have affected any of the explicit type signatures of the function in other languages. I say this as an enormous proponent of Rust and static typing.
You are tilting at windmills.