It is heavily typed. Very strongly typed for the most part (except numbers). So typed that it won't accept a "character vector" in the place of a string.
But type checking is mostly at runtime, not at compile-time.
The good part is that you can edit your program at runtime and restart it at the exact point the error happened, very easily.
In context, particularly given the reference I made to Typed Racket, it should be abundantly clear that I'm referring to the lack of static typing there.
That being said, I think you'll find truly untyped languages hard to come by. Other than assembly, Forth (similar to assembly in many ways), and esolangs such as Befunge (also quite similar to assembly), languages that see widespread use always check types eventually. Checking types eventually is table stakes. Checking types at compile time, before what you wrote has a chance to explode on you in an unpredictable manner when that one branch for an edge case finally gets taken after a few days of uptime, that's the truly desirable feature that not all languages manage to provide.
It is heavily typed. Very strongly typed for the most part (except numbers). So typed that it won't accept a "character vector" in the place of a string.
But type checking is mostly at runtime, not at compile-time.
The good part is that you can edit your program at runtime and restart it at the exact point the error happened, very easily.