The first time I tried typing some Python code was a little experimental HTML generator, pure functional style, that used the keyword args dict as a kind of miscellaneous grab-bag to pass functions and data to sub-functions. You set up a dict and called a top-level function with it and then it worked like a kind of template system, but again all through functions & applications of functions rather than "mail merge" of templates, etc.

It was simple, elegant, perfectly cromulent Python code. However, there was no way to specify the type of the dicts because they were so heterogeneous.

- - - -

I have to say, I was a Python fan for ages, used it professionally for over a decade, so this isn't an outsider's opinion: Python is kind of over. It won't die any time soon, but it has been "improved" out of its sweet spot of applicability, and no longer has a compelling story for adoption going forward. Every niche Python is known for serving well now has even better options:

- Rapid Application Development: Nim, Red

- Readability: Go, Nim, D, Zig

- Science: Julia

- Large multi-dev projects: Java, Go

- Systems programming (python glue): D, Rust, Zig

- Web app backends: Erlang/Elixir

And so on...

Really, as much as I still love Python (and I do) the only things I feel it's appropriate for these days are small scripts that need to remain flexible (in other words, that are likely to be modified often), things that are too complex to be a CLI command, but less complex or more dynamic than, say, an email client or RSS reader. If the type domain of the program doesn't change rapidly or unpredictably then you don't need Python's dynamic typing. If you need static typing I think you should use a language that supports that out-of-the-box, not tacked on later.