alt Hacker News> changing the meaning of "untyped" extra confusing is that dynamically typed programming languages often have types as 1st class objects, and they get used all the time for practical everyday programming. Calling these languages "untyped" is just wrong on the face of it -- they're full of types.
Just to be clear, it's the dynamically typed languages that changed the meaning of untyped. OP's usage is closer to the original and to the current usage of the terminology in the study of programming languages.
Types and Programming Languages, one of the best regarded texts on types, has this helpful explanation:
> A type system can be regarded as calculating a kind of static approximation to the runtime behaviors of the terms in a program. ... Terms like "dynamically typed" are arguably misnomers and should probably be replaced by "dynamically checked," but the usage is standard.
In other words both are standard, but that's because the meaning of "types" has changed over time from its original sense and when it comes to the formal study of programming languages we still use the original terminology.
Just to be even clearer.
In the time of the original use, there were only static types. Languages had very little in terms of UDT's. Even a struct in C was barely a type of its own. I don't recall the details, but there was something about struct member names not being local to the struct. Interpreted languages didn't have records or classes at all(*), and certainly not types as first class objects.
We cannot really talk about how dynamically typed languages with rich type systems were originally labelled, back when they didn't exist at all.
(*) I'm looking forward to someone pointing out an interesting counterexample.