Python has a lot of merit as an easy to use language, a modern BASIC, but "strongly typed" is marketing that confuses rather than enlightens (to quote Prof. Harper). The term "strongly-tagged" is perhaps more apt, but sadly that ship has sailed.
Strongly typed used to mean safe, as in you can't add strings to ints or reinterpret values. As opposed to C and others where anything goes. I think that's a useful distinction.
Imagine all that lovely energy poured into understanding the compromises involved in designing realistic type systems. But its messy, and you don't become famous from dealing with messy problems.
I can't think of a static language that doesn't support a dynamic type, it's just that most require explicit casts or unpacking to use with existing typed interfaces, e.g. "Object" in Java.
> Strongly typed used to mean safe
It still does, it's just that type theory doesn't distinguish between a runtime failure with a nice error message versus a segfault, both are programs that "go wrong".
I would be in favour of "strong dynamic types" instead of "strongly typed".
