alt Hacker NewsFrom Benjamin Pierce's Types and Programming Languages, which is basically the definitive work on types:
> A type system is a tractable syntactic method for proving the absence of certain program behaviors by classifying phrases according to the kinds of values they compute.
And later on:
> 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.
The definitions you're using are the ones that he identifies as "arguably misnomers" but "standard". That is, they're fine as colloquial definitions but they are not the ones used in academic works. Academically speaking, a type system is a method of statically approximating the behavior of a computer program in order to rule out certain classes of behavior. Dynamic checks do not count.
As I've said elsewhere, I don't have a problem with people using the colloquial definitions. I do have a problem with people actively correcting someone who's using the more correct academic definitions. We should have both sets in our lexicons and be understanding when someone uses one versus the other.
Benjamin Pierce is entitled to his opinion, which you have posted over and over as though it were carved upon stone tablets. "One guy says that dynamic typing is arguably a misnomer" is not a strong case.
The Wikipedia article on type systems is well sourced and fairly well written:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Type_system
It has this section:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Type_system#Dynamic_type_check...
Here's a pull quote:
> Dynamic type checking is the process of verifying the type safety of a program at runtime. Implementations of dynamically type-checked languages generally associate each runtime object with a type tag (i.e., a reference to a type) containing its type information.
This accords with ordinary usage in the profession, agreeing with the person you're disagreeing with. You should read it. It provides no support at all for the argument that Python is untyped in any sense. It quotes Pierce several times, including the first citation, so it isn't ignorance on the editor's part.
You are advancing the argument that type theory, as you understand it (there being many paper-publishing respectable academics who do not agree with you on this), trumps type systems in practice, but other than insistence you give no reason why anyone should agree with this premise. Computer scientists aren't discovering laws of nature, nor are they writing proscriptive regulations as to how engineering should be accomplished or discussed. They have their own world and vocabulary to go along with it, but they do not have standing (as you do not) to dictate how terms should be used by others.
I don't accept that argument. If someone wants to make a narrower statement like "according to Pierce you could call Python untyped" I might question its relevance but I'd let it pass. Without such qualification, if someone says Python is untyped I will laugh at them and say "what's it doing when it throws a TypeError then, offering an opinion?". Or on a message board just reply that, no, it's dynamically typed, or unityped if you must, but untyped means something else. Which, indeed, it does.