Look, we're fighting about terminology not meaning. I have carefully defined my terms and made statements which live entirely within that world. I have also des

Look, we're fighting about terminology not meaning. I have carefully defined my terms and made statements which live entirely within that world. I have also described terms of a larger world, noted that these two formal systems are distinct and also how they fit together. If you want to talk about that which I called "tags" I'm fine with that. I'm even fine with calling them "types" if you insist---so long as it's also made clear that these "types" have nothing at all to with "static types" as they are different beasts that are essentially non-comparable. That is all fine. I take argument to trying to smooth out the distinction, though. That is essentially wrong and unworkable. Static type safety is far from meaningless or weak, but it is absolutely different from your definition of "type safety" as used here. I argue that static types have a precise and meaningful formal definition which extends far beyond what your attempt to define "dynamic type safety" encompasses. What you offer isn't meaningless or invalid---it's just vague and changes depending upon the language you're considering.