Are the critiques in "All the things I hate about Python" valid?

[MRAB]

On 2018-02-18 11:55, Anders Wegge Keller wrote:
> På Sat, 17 Feb 2018 15:05:34 +1100
> Ben Finney <ben+python at benfinney.id.au> skrev:
>> boB Stepp <robertvstepp at gmail.com> writes:
> 
> 
>> He blithely conflates “weakly typed” (Python objects are not weakly, but
>> very strongly typed) 
> 
>   Python is more strongly typed than PHP, but that doesn't really say much.
> However, compared to a language like C, there are big holes in the type
> safety.
> 
>      >>> alist = [1, 'two', ('three', four), 5*'#']
> 
>   That list is not only weakly typed, but rather untyped. There are no
> safeguards in the language, that enforce that all elements in a list or
> other container are in fact of the same type. Before type annotations and
> mypy, I could not enforce that other than at runtime.
> 
That's not untyped. If you want to see what untyped is, look at BCPL, 
which has only the "bit-pattern".

In an untyped language, operators and functions take values 
(bit-patterns) and return values, so there would be one operator for 
integer addition and another operator for floating-point addition. If 
you do integer addition on a value that represents a floating-point 
number, it won't complain, but the result will be meaningless. 
Similarly, it won't complain if you use a floating-point number, 
consisting of a mantissa and exponent, as a pointer.

>   So claiming Python to have very strongly typed objects is a bit of a
> strecth. PHP that many of us like to be smug about is equally strongly
> typed. It just comes with a metric ton of inane type coersions that have
> gone too far. However, we are happy to add an integer to a float without
> having to make an explicit conversion every time, so ... Thread carefull and
> all that.
>