Not a good option - then you'll get a whole different set of pedants saying that Python is always dynamically typed, which I think is a lot more reasonable than quibbling over the use of "untyped" to describe Forth.
Adding type annotations doesn't make Python statically typed. Type annotations are borderline meaningless, they're basically just a type of documentation that helps your tools spit out better suggestions and makes your tools yell at junior developers.
Python isn't taking advantage of type annotations to produce better compiled code or anything, it's still a dynamic language that infers types at runtime.
Not a good option - then you'll get a whole different set of pedants saying that Python is always dynamically typed, which I think is a lot more reasonable than quibbling over the use of "untyped" to describe Forth.
Adding type annotations doesn't make Python statically typed. Type annotations are borderline meaningless, they're basically just a type of documentation that helps your tools spit out better suggestions and makes your tools yell at junior developers.
Python isn't taking advantage of type annotations to produce better compiled code or anything, it's still a dynamic language that infers types at runtime.
Yeah that's exactly what I was saying. So what word would you use to mean "dynamically typed without static type annotations"?
> your tools yell at junior developers.
Oh you're one of those...
1 reply →