[marcosdumay]

Nowadays I feel that experience with some type system at least as powerful as Haskell's is required to criticize static typing... Well, of course, you can criticize it without such experience, but that only serves to look foolish when you complain about stuff that is solved for a decade.

Are you really complaining about lack of generics?

[falcolas]

Come back to me when the most used programming languages have a type system like Haskell's. Then we can talk about the benefits of static typing over dynamic typing. Until then, static typing is mostly "expected a HashMap<i32, u64>, got a HashMap<i64, u64>" or other pedantic stuff like that which is only really meaningful to the compiler.

[andrewflnr]

> Come back to me when the most used programming languages have a type system like Haskell's.

We never get there if the conversation about types is dominated by people who have only used Java-like type systems. Even ignoring that, demanding that powerful type systems be ubiquitous before discussing their benefits is a complete non sequitur. There's no excuse for ignorance, here.

[srtjstjsj]

You are confusing "static typing" with "algebraic typing", which is related but different.