I actually think Python's type system is pretty good, given the circumstances. It's got some nice features like Optional forcing checks for None values before u

I actually think Python's type system is pretty good, given the circumstances. It's got some nice features like Optional forcing checks for None values before use, and structural subtyping with typing.Protocol. Could it be better if Python were designed with types from the ground up? Yeah, of course. But given the requirements of integrating with all existing Python code and not breaking any existing code I think it does a decent job. The bigger issue with Python and static typing is the ecosystem and conventions that a lot of developers use, made worse by a lot of these developers really being data scientists who are writing Python. *args/**kwargs are heavily abused by people too lazy to write proper method signatures. It's extremely common in Python to have methods pass around DataFrames or dictionaries as a grab-bag of stuff. Bonus points when methods add and remove columns/fields so you don't know what's in the data bag until you run the code (or read every line). You can do this in almost any language, of course. Nothing stops you from writing a C# program with every type being `dynamic` or have all your Go methods accept `interface{}`. But Python, for a long time, actively encouraged this approach, and sadly there's still many beginner tutorials today that present things like "just write a method that takes *kwargs and you don't have to change the function signature!" as an advanced language feature for smart people instead of an awful footgun.*