Please read http://www.pphsg.org/cdsmith/types.html http://www.pphsg.org/cdsmith/types.html -- None of [safety, strict, dynamic, typing] mean what you think the

Please read http://www.pphsg.org/cdsmith/types.html http://www.pphsg.org/cdsmith/types.html -- None of [safety, strict, dynamic, typing] mean what you think they mean. Your most fundamental error is that 'dynamic' and 'strict' are not mutually exclusive in the slightest. In fact, almost all dynamically type-checked language implementations are vastly more strict (and safe) than any of the non-HM static type checking implementations.