2. Your last two sentences were, I think, not needed for the point you were making. They were also somewhere between gross generalizations and flat-out wrong, and felt like a gratuitous slam on a language that wasn't even the topic. I thought that deserved a response, even if it wasn't your main point.
3. I may assume that you know C. I don't assume that everyone reading this exchange knows C.
Pointless correction. Gross generalizations are not wrong in this particular situation, which is not meant to teach anyone C.
Let me try again.
Do you think that your correction was more important than helping the poster of this comment correct their conceptual mistake?
> "In what reasonable sense can Python be said to "enforce types at runtime" here?"
You know what I meant and what error I was clarifying for the comment I was replying to. Yet you went out of your way to point all sorts of irrelevant mistakes in my post, when the gist of it was right.
Do you feel it was more important to correct me on these trivial things, or was my reply more or less correct when fixing the conceptual error in this sentence?:
> "In what reasonable sense can Python be said to "enforce types at runtime" here?"
Here's a nitpick of my own to your post:
> "Some of those things are unsafe unless you are quite sure what you're doing."
Wrong. Type (un)safety does not depend on you "being quite sure of what you're doing".
PS: assume I know C and that I've programmed complex things using it. No need to catch yourself with statements like "not that C has any idea of what a dict is". Assume we are both C programmers. It will make you sound more polite.