[sidlls]

I find that a significant fraction of the bugs introduced to the code bases I've worked on that have dynamic typing are due to issues that even a rudimentary static typing system would prevent at compile time. I'm struggling to grok how a language with no type system might look. Something post-modern and Picasso-esque? To use data in a meaningful way in a program it must be possible to reason about it, and that requires that it have at least some structure.

[krallja]

Assembly languages are untyped. Nothing prevents you from reinterpreting a memory address as a type it is not. (Except possibly alignment issues.)

[sidlls]

That's not quite right though, is it? Nothing prevents one from "creative" interpretation of memory in, say, C, either, but it would be difficult to argue C is untyped.

[krallja]

The C type system prevents you from accidental creative interpretation of memory. You wouldn't say Rust is untyped just because of the `unsafe` keyword either.

No such type safety exists in assembly, except that certain opcode-register combinations are prohibited.