It's relatively easy to do this statically compared to bringing the benefits of Haskell to a unityped language. We just don't program in languages designed around dependent types typically.
Dependent types aren't hard.
Agda, Idris, Coq for any who are curious as to what that looks like.
You are right. The biggest problem I was trying to point out is that you need to make your static type system much more complex in order to be able to even state some things that are easy to check dynamically. Also, dependent types on their own dont solve the problem of interfacing with dynamic code.
It's relatively easy to do this statically compared to bringing the benefits of Haskell to a unityped language. We just don't program in languages designed around dependent types typically.
Dependent types aren't hard.
Agda, Idris, Coq for any who are curious as to what that looks like.
Total functional programming is cool ^_^