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...