Pretty much what I get all the time from people who don't know how to use type systems productively, and then think that because they can't nobody else can. If types doesn't work for you, don't use them. They work for me so I use them.
I can use strong typing productively. I can use dynamic systems _way_ more productively.
When all things are equal, the impedance is not from lack of skill. It is staring at you straight in the face: it's a rules-based type prover that -- by definition -- significantly restricts the set of valid programs.
This is the definition of a type prover.
The argument should be that the value of this restriction outweighs the cost. But no one is yet making this claim. Which should make one wonder.
> But no one is yet making this claim. Which should make one wonder.
I for one are most definitely making that claim. Based on 35+ years of programming in both single typed and typed programming languages. But clearly your experience is different.
Of course it is an opinion thing.
> never a concession as to its cons and costs.
Pretty much what I get all the time from people who don't know how to use type systems productively, and then think that because they can't nobody else can. If types doesn't work for you, don't use them. They work for me so I use them.