At this point it's beyond a hill I'm willing do die on. I'm not really interested in discussing it. If you don't get it I probably don't want to talk to you about it, I might even think less of you as a software developer. The amount of pre-existing respect for someone I'd need to have before I engage in a good-faith discussion on "are types good" is pretty high.
edit: To clarify, I am on the "types good" side of things
Author here. I ended the post with:
> I can see both side of the arguments on many topics, such as vim vs. emacs, tabs vs. spaces, and even much more controversial ones. Though in this case, the costs are so low compared to the benefits that I just don't understand why anyone would ever choose not to use types.
> I'd love to know what I'm missing, but until then: Strong typing is a hill I'm willing to die on.
I genuinely want to know what I'm missing. I also outlined in the post all of the arguments I usually see in favor of not having types and why I disagree with them.
I'm happy, willing, and excited to hear what I'm missing.
I'm also a pretty die-hard type-system user, but I've been programming a lot of Lisp and FORTH lately. FORTH is just bad at safety period. Lisp, on the other hand, I can see why there really isn't a need for types. The macro system means you can create arbitrary "compile-time" safety checks which is, IMO, more powerful than just a type system. That being said, I would still love a strongly, statically typed Lisp, or at least one with a strong macro type system (before y'all mention it, I'm not a fan of typed Racket).
I haven't used it, but I know that Coalton adds static typing to Common Lisp, might be something you're interested in.