No, Python is not strongly typed by any serious definition of the concept.
>>> "foo" + 3.141
TypeError: can only concatenate str (not "float") to str
>>> object() + 3.141
TypeError: unsupported operand type(s) for +: 'object' and 'float'
> "foo" + 3.141
"foo3.141"
> Object() + 3.141
"[object Object]3.141"
> [] + {}
"[object Object]"
> {} + []
0 > "foo" + 3.141
"foo3.141"
No, this is strongly typed.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strong_and_weak_typing#Implici...
> Smalltalk, Perl, Ruby, Python, and Self are all "strongly typed" in the sense that typing errors are prevented at runtime and they do little implicit type conversion, but these languages make no use of static type checking: the compiler does not check or enforce type constraint rules. The term duck typing is now used to describe the dynamic typing paradigm used by the languages in this group.
That is quite a qualified usage.
The only feature distinguishing Python from Javascript here is that Python does less implicit type conversion (where it is reasonable v.s. where it is insane). In every other dimension it is the same.
>>> 2**100
1267650600228229401496703205376L
>>> 'x' + u'y'
u'xy'
>>> 1 + .5
1.5
>>> 2 * 3j
6j
>>> x = [3, 4]; x.extend((5, 6)); x
[3, 4, 5, 6]Javascript:
> null.bob()
TypeError: Cannot read property 'bob' of null
> 4 >>> Symbol("four")
TypeError: Cannot convert a Symbol value to a number
> BigInt(null)
TypeError: Cannot convert null to a BigInt
> Object.create(false)
TypeError: Object prototype may only be an Object or null: false
int anInteger = 10;
String s = anInteger + "Hello";