>I don't think you disprove the hypothesis, though. I think you are talking about equally, if not more, important thing - ergonomics
Types are an intrinsic part of ergonomics.
>I'd rather see something else being an ambassador of static types.
I'd be happy to see another language be an "ambassador of static types" provided the tip of the iceberg of 'visible things built in it' doesn't compromise of say, one spam filter and a file converter.
I'm getting pretty tired of hearing about how awesome and productive haskell's type system is for 15 whole years and seeing a whole lot of evidence that it's waaaaaay too unproductive to build anything of use in it.
Rust is a fine ambassador of static types (and has some great usage examples), but rust and python address extremely different non-overlapping markets and rust isn't shy about the fact it makes it fucking hard to compile things in.
For example creating new type in Java and Rust is a whole different world. If you can't separate Java the language from the idea of static typing and type systems, you are probably not a person suited for such discussion.
As for your remarks about Haskell, welp, I have build things with Haskell and Python, and it's not even close. But I guess chasing runtime exceptions during development is an acquired taste.
Types are an intrinsic part of ergonomics.
>I'd rather see something else being an ambassador of static types.
I'd be happy to see another language be an "ambassador of static types" provided the tip of the iceberg of 'visible things built in it' doesn't compromise of say, one spam filter and a file converter.
I'm getting pretty tired of hearing about how awesome and productive haskell's type system is for 15 whole years and seeing a whole lot of evidence that it's waaaaaay too unproductive to build anything of use in it.
Rust is a fine ambassador of static types (and has some great usage examples), but rust and python address extremely different non-overlapping markets and rust isn't shy about the fact it makes it fucking hard to compile things in.