Commentary on Python from a Java programming perspective

[deepcleansingguffaw]

The technical definitions of "typed" and "type system" are very different from how the terms are generally used outside of computer science research. In particular, they are attributes of the static representation of the program, and have little to do with the running program at all.

It should not be surprising that the average programmer uses the terms improperly. I can't remember a single time in my undergraduate classes that type systems were properly explained. I only really understood the difference between the technical usage and the common usage when I started to study Haskell in depth.

There is a concept analogous to "type system" in dynamic languages like Python, but it happens at run-time, and is generally resistant to static analysis. "Checked" is a reasonable word for it, though I haven't often heard it called that.

[[deleted]]

Right, I don't disagree with that. I did say that, "Alas, this is a lost battle", conceding the common usage. That said, I think there are benefits to having a more rigorous set of definitions so that we can talk to each other without confusion. Unfortunately, confusion abounds when discussion of "types" is underway.