You're pointing to cases to invalidate the claim as if that claim was supposed to be interpreted to be bracketed by a universal quantifier. It wasn't, and arguing in that way is not particularly insightful.
"You can write a compiler in a weakly typed language that resembles a compiler in a strongly typed language." Happy now?
The point, which you have ignored, is that there are strongly typed languages where the features you're relying on are not present. In fact, this is true of a bunch of the compilers that are among the most widely used in the world--ones that people are using to build projects written in C and C++ and things like the language support baked into IDEs for Java, C#, etc. So the relevant factor is not "strong vs. weak?" but rather those features (structural matching, etc) that you are relying on.
And let's be real, the original comment ("I'd rather put my hand in boiling water than develop a compiler in a dynamic weak typed language"; now flagged) was no more than a drive-by insult.
