I feel like your reply here, and perhaps a few other comments, are confusing a few senses of the word "dynamic" (which, to be fair, is i.m.o. a reasonable confu

I feel like your reply here, and perhaps a few other comments, are confusing a few senses of the word "dynamic" (which, to be fair, is i.m.o. a reasonable confusion). Python is "a dynamic language" mostly in the sense that it is "dynamically typed". (I'm sure you're aware, I'm not trying to patronize, just setting the stage.) That's one sense. Tuples in Python are still dynamic in this sense, of course, because every damn value in Python is, for good or for ill. But there are at least two other senses in play here. Compare C structs with, say, JS Objects. Both let you mutate the values they point to, but JS Objects let you add new property-names at will (or remove them). So one sense of "dynamic" is "resizeable". We could also have a data type, e.g. linked lists in various "purely functional" languages, that can be resized (pushed and popped), but existing cells cannot be mutated. AIUI Clojure is full of this sort of thing. Point #1 is that nothing in colanderman's comments argues against Python's dynamic typing. My second and broader thought is that I agree with colanderman that it's weird that Python conflates these latter two senses of dynamism (resizeability and cell-mutability), and even more weird that it does so for one data type (the sequence) and more or less ignores it elsewhere (though e.g. frozendict does exist).