I agree. I know we can get picky about the exact characteristics of a languages type-system, but for me they fall into two camps: "Typeful" languages and "(eff

I agree. I know we can get picky about the exact characteristics of a languages type-system, but for me they fall into two camps: "Typeful" languages and "(effectively) Typeless" languages. The former have a "good" typesystem, and expose it as a tool the programmer can use to help themselves solve problems. In the latter case, there may or may not be a type system lurking in the language somewhere, but the language either doesn't expose that system as a tool for the programmer to use, or it does so inconsistently. Personally I think python is in the later camp, it has types but it doesn't really give the programmer much help when solving problems. Clojure is another example. The Java type-system is down there somewhere in the murk, but idiomatic Clojure code doesn't use it, and it's not really a tool for the programmer to use, more an accident of the platform.