The problem with that is that all the languages seem either to inherently be dynamic or static. Any attempt to add the other kind is hamstrung by the language's inherent tendencies, and it doesn't really work. Perl or python, for instance, have optional typing, but it's not checked at compile-time. And then there's things like c++ or d variant that--again, they don't quite feel quite as dynamic as they would in a dynamic language. I don't think these features can truly coexist well in the same language.
> both compile and interpreted
That's no hard ask. You just have to fight inertia, but there's really not much standing in the way of something like that.
> The problem with that is that all the languages seem either to inherently be dynamic or static. Any attempt to add the other kind is hamstrung by the language's inherent tendencies, and it doesn't really work. Perl or python, for instance, have optional typing, but it's not checked at compile-time.
Python optional typing is checked in an optional pre-compilation step. Except that there is no opportunity to use typing for optimization, this isn't meaningfully different, when used, from being checked as part of compilation. In fact, other than using type information for optimization it's pretty much what most compile time type checking does; compilation isn't an indivisible atomic step.
i dont know of any language, that have both, and was successful
Not sure if clojure specs, achieve the same outcome of optional typing, so maybe you have a point :)