It's not interpreted vs dynamic, it's static vs dynamic typing. Python and Typescript are dynamically typed languages with optional AOT type checking, meaning i

It's not interpreted vs dynamic, it's static vs dynamic typing. Python and Typescript are dynamically typed languages with optional AOT type checking, meaning it is valid to write code that would fail typechecking or is impossible to typecheck at parse-time (in other words, types are only guaranteed to be checked when the code is executed, but types are always checked!). There's also a sliding scale of "weak" to "strong" typing (I don't want to attempt to define it). C is the canonical example of a "weakly" typed languages, but imo C++ fits that as well - unless you follow the idioms of "type safe" programming, which makes it difficult for a programmer to write code that is not type checked. The difference between a weak-but-statically typed language and dynamically typed language is that it's possible for a programmer to write code that is never type checked, leading to potentially undefined behavior. C++ needs a notion of "type safe" programming because it is possible for a programmer to write such code. Contrast to a language like Rust or Haskell, where it's close to impossible to write type-unsafe code (without explicitly saying you want to). My point is that implying "safe" programming also implies type safety misunderstands that such safety is close to meaningless in safe programming languages. It's just so much harder to write type-unsafe code it's kind of pointless to bring it up, unless you're writing C and C++.