Python programmers are crying out for types it seems. It’s a shame the Python foundation haven’t blessed a spec. Better to get everyone working on a single slightly imperfect standard than a morass or differing ideas.
Have you written any go code? it's the closest I've come to actually enjoying a type system - it gets out of your way, and loosely enforces stuff. It could do with some more convenience methods, but overall I'd say it's my most _efficient_ type system. (not necessarily the best)
No one can do fast prototypes with types, all they can do is convince themselves they are faster than they really are.
Having worked in both dynamically typed and statically typed software development shops, the statically typed programmers are considerably slower in general. Usually they only have 1/3 of the output as programmers who use dynamically typing. Statically typed programmers also tend to be much less ambitious in their projects in general.
They still think they are "fast programmers" but it's complete fiction.
> Using types in a prototyping language is madness.
It's not a prototyping language or a scripting language or whatever. It's just a language. And types are useful, especially when you can opt out of type checking when you need to. Most of the time you don't want to be reassigning variables to be different types anyway, even though occasionally an escape hatch is nice.
Types are not always useful, they increase the line count per delivered feature by 3x to 4x, which results in a corresponding increase in bugs in the delivered code and an corresponding increase in the overall software development costs.
It's very foolish to just use types in all programming projects.
