I think 'dynamic language' is appropriate here, since it's not only talking about types; it's largely talking about macros, pre-processors, reflection, etc. too.

Also, the main argument is that separating features into those used at compile-time (AKA static) and run-time (AKA dynamic) is necessarily creating separate languages (i.e. a "static language", which may involve types, macros, preprocessors, etc.; and a "dynamic language", which may involve memory allocation, branching, I/O, etc.)