> I really don't think this is the meaning of 'type-safety' in common parlance.
The bulk of the article is a call for more accurate use of terminology, so in a sense you’re noting the same thing: people using “type safe” when they mean “compile-time type-checked”, as a specific misuse of terminology.
Types are safe if they are checked, and the checking can be done statically at compile time or dynamically at run time.
Perhaps we’re just so used to working with type-safe languages that it is taken for granted (it would be quite unusual in eg Web Dev to use a language that is not type-safe) that the terminology is repurposed to be useful in conversations that we might have more often, eg, whether to rely more on static vs dynamic type checks.
The bulk of the article is a call for more accurate use of terminology, so in a sense you’re noting the same thing: people using “type safe” when they mean “compile-time type-checked”, as a specific misuse of terminology.
The Wikipedia page spells out the difference clearly: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Type_safety
Types are safe if they are checked, and the checking can be done statically at compile time or dynamically at run time.
Perhaps we’re just so used to working with type-safe languages that it is taken for granted (it would be quite unusual in eg Web Dev to use a language that is not type-safe) that the terminology is repurposed to be useful in conversations that we might have more often, eg, whether to rely more on static vs dynamic type checks.