Just a citation: 

���I spent a few weeks ... trying to sort out the terminology of ���strongly typed���, 

���statically typed���, ���safe���, etc., and found it amazingly dif���cult ... The usage of these 

terms is so various as to render them almost useless.���

-- Benjamin C. Pierce

If you use one of these terms, you should give a definition. 

And if you hear one, you shouldn't assume the author means what you think.

For example some people could argue that Smalltalk is untyped (or unityped [1]), while you argued that it is strongly typed since there is no implicit type conversion.

For most people, the static/dynamic and the weak/strong distinctions are supposed to be orthogonal.

So, for most people, strong typing is not a synonymous of static typing.

[1] http://existentialtype.wordpress.com/2011/03/19/dynamic-languages-are-static-languages/  

On 2 ao��t 2013, at 06:03, btc@openInWorld.com wrote:

greetings all,

I'm in the final weeks of writing up my Masters dissertation and seeking some scholarly references to Smalltalk being "Strongly Typed."

I my review of Smalltalk I was surprised to find that [1] describes Smalltalk as Strongly Typed, since Smalltalk is sometimes denigrated as being untyped / weakly typed. From reviewing discussion forums this now makes sense, but I can only find one of scholarly reference that briefly mentions this [2].  The most enlightening is [3] which defines Type Strength as:

"A strongly typed language prevents any operation on the wrong type of data. In weakly typed languages there are ways to escape this restriction: type conversions"

meaning that getting a MNU is a form of Strong Typing since you can't make a Smalltalk object run a method that is not its own.  The problem appears to be that Strong Typing has been synonymous with Static Typing for a long time, and Static Typing strongly ties types to variables, except in Dynamically Typed languages, I think types can be considered independently from variables, in which case the definition of [3] has some merit, hence Smalltalk is Strongly Typed.

Sounds controversial, so I'm just hoping for some peer reviewed backup - but only you have something easily to hand. This is just a small thing I can just leave out if necessary.

cheers -ben

[1] http://www.squeak.org/Features/
[2] p15, http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.35.7507&rep=rep1&type=pdf
[3] http://www.cs.kuleuven.ac.be/publicaties/rapporten/cw/CW415.pdf