>sanxiyn's comment seems to fully understand the context
No it doesn't, given that the context was specifically runtime checks like array bounds checking, and he replied with a non-sequitur about memory corruption.
>That does not match my definition of type checks.
That is because "your definition" is incorrect. I am using the actual definition. "Dynamic typing" is a deliberately incorrect name for untyped languages. Runtime checking of value compatibility is not type checking.
1) Surely the most common source of memory corruption is bounds violations.
2) Even reconciling our disagreement on terminology, I still disagree A) that a strict phase separation is a prerequisite for types to exist at all and B) that it even makes sense to talk about "untyped" as if I couldn't just invent a type system (however complex) for proving properties of a particular language that previously had no known type system.
The simple fact of the matter is that definitions evolve over time as we learn more about our field. "Type safety" is historically valid phrase for what we now know as "memory safety". In context of the performance claims, it was quite clear what the author meant.
>Surely the most common source of memory corruption is bounds violations.
Surely the most common source of oranges is orange trees.
>Even reconciling our disagreement on terminology
You aren't reconciling it, you are just repeating "I don't like the real definition of type system in regards to computer science". That's great for you and all, but it has nothing to do with me. If you want to learn about it I can recommend some material, but if you just want to argue "I don't understand X therefore using the correct terminology for X is wrong" then there's no need to continue.
No it doesn't, given that the context was specifically runtime checks like array bounds checking, and he replied with a non-sequitur about memory corruption.
>That does not match my definition of type checks.
That is because "your definition" is incorrect. I am using the actual definition. "Dynamic typing" is a deliberately incorrect name for untyped languages. Runtime checking of value compatibility is not type checking.