Both of those languages are strongly typed.
It seems you're confusing the fact that the type checking happens at runtime (that is to say, that they are dynamically typed) to mean that they're "untyped", but that's just not the case.
If one is confused about the languages one is using at this level, then modern tooling features aren't likely to help much.
Then there's dynamic and weakly typed, ie. JavaScript. Dynamic and strongly typed, Ruby. Static and weakly typed, C. Static and strongly typed, Rust.
Like, no one would call Ocaml untyped if you used type inference and didn't spell them out yourself... Or if you used the auto keyword everywhere in C++... The Ruby and Python runtimes both definitely enforce types.
Well, now you have! Here are some examples:
https://0xda.de/blog/2024/03/untyped-python-sucks/
https://lucumr.pocoo.org/2023/12/1/the-python-that-was/
In fairness I think it is a fairly recent linguistic shift, probably because there's no debate between weakly typed and strongly typed - strongly typed is oblivious the right answer. Instead the debate is between dynamically-typed-without-static-type-annotations and statically-typed-or-dynamically-typed-with-static-type-annotations, but obviously people need a more succinct term for that.
> Like, no one would call Ocaml untyped if you used type inference and didn't spell them out yourself... Or if you used the auto keyword everywhere in C++... The Ruby and Python runtimes both definitely enforce types.
Static type inference still counts as having static types. That's totally different to dynamic typing without static type annotations ("untyped").
Python isn't taking advantage of type annotations to produce better compiled code or anything, it's still a dynamic language that infers types at runtime.
> your tools yell at junior developers.
Oh you're one of those...
If by one of those you mean a solopreneur who doesn't have any junior devs to yell at then yes. If I wanted to use static types I'd use an actual statically typed language with all of the performance benefits (Go, Java, Rust, Haskell, Ocaml, etc...).
Using a dynamically typed/interpreted language with type annotations is literally the worst of all worlds...
1. I know where the reference docs live already. Auto-complete doesn't obviate that need.
2. Again auto-complete doesn't completely obviate the need to navigate by file name/path (though it does reduce it), so I already know that is valuable.
3. The speed of typing sometimes is a limitation. I'm not a slow typer but sometimes there are situations where you just have to type out something tedious, and you're not doing anything other than typing. Yes even with fancy Vim/multiple cursor editing. Auto-complete speeds that up a little, but Copilot sometimes speeds it up a lot. You should try it.
For example for printf debugging, with copilot you can pretty much just type `dbg!` and hit tab. Much faster.
You also missed some significant advantages:
1. go-to-definition makes navigation much faster
2. type inlays make understanding the code much faster
3. auto-complete makes looking up method names much faster (is it .starts_with or .has_prefix? .contains, .has, .any, or .some?)
The only upside of not using LSP tooling is that sometimes it can bring your computer to it's knees, whereas plain text editing will always be fast. Easily worth it though.