> Python is the language that gave dynamic typing its bad name. I don't think this is true at all. There have been people against dynamic typing since it was f

> Python is the language that gave dynamic typing its bad name. I don't think this is true at all. There have been people against dynamic typing since it was first introduced, and their justifications haven't changed due to Python. There's nothing about Python's approach to dynamic types that is particularly egregious, in my opinion. In fact, since type annotations were added to the syntax in 3.6 (I think), there is now support for external tools to do some static type-checking (though these are not enforced by the language proper). If I were to point to an in-use dynamically typed language with dynamic type problems, I'd be pointing at JavaScript. The extend of implicit conversions is truly heinous (again, just my opinion). > I'm not sure dynamic typing is the fault by itself, I guess it's from a lack of compilation phase I'm not sure I understand this. For a language to be "dynamically typed", it must necessarily not check types during compilation no matter what, otherwise it would be "statically typed". So I don't see how adding a distinct compilation phase to Python's evaluation model would affect anything. Also, Python does have a compilation phase; it just isn't distinct from the interpretation phase. There are no longer interpreters separate from compilers, as far as mainstream languages are concerned. > Why is Python so against map, reduce and ergonomic lambdas? The actual answer to this is that Guido van Rossum didn't want to make them first-class. That's the whole justification. > Python is much harder to understand and debug in hairier codebases when you add metaclasses, weird backward compatible behaviours, monkey patching, typing woes and an often substandard stdlib. Most of these sound like problems with dynamic types, honestly.