I disagree. "Weakly typed" does not even have a precise definition.
Defining "strongly typed" as "the way Haskell does it" and anything less as "weakly typed" is an opinion.
I agree that Haskell types are stronger than Go. That does not does not mean that Go is "weakly typed". It's "less strongly typed than Haskell".
> The parent clearly expressed that he wants a static strong type system.
I was not contesting that, only the classification of Go as "weakly typed".
In the most conventional definitions, Go is a strongly typed language. So this factual statement appears to be false.
As always, there is some confusion in this topic about dynamic typing vs static typing. There seems to be plenty of dynamic typing in Go, which in itself does not make its type system weak.
Calling one weak and the other overcomplicated are both completely subjective, biased statements.
And no, some random blog doesn't count as a citation: There are zero legitimate, agreed to sources that will back up your definition. Instead it's people painting broad strokes to bias the world towards their own beliefs.
Just as unreasonably I could say that Go has a Clarified Type System, versus the Conundrum Type System found in Haskell.
Now whether Go's type system actually has the property of 'weak'ness is very debatable. But whether it is true or false, it remains a factual statement.
The post that set this off called Go's type system "weak". They were not saying that it was weakly typed.
One might prefer a weak type system over a strong type system, but that's a different discussion. The parent clearly expressed that he wants a static strong type system.