[steveklabnik]

What makes that an interesting question? That’s like saying “how would someone have an idea to tests their code unless they were trained to think about testing?” It feels like a tautology, and not particularly relevant.

(I love both dynamic and static typing. I think dynamic type systems are more useful than basic static type systems, but also really enjoy more expressive static type systems.)

[spenrose]

Perhaps the programmer should be focused on the purpose the code serves, rather than the code as code object. Mental cycles devoted to thinking about types are, for most programs, overhead. It's perfectly reasonable to be a strong static-typing believer, though I am not. But it's also perfectly reasonable not to think about types when coding, as millions of useful programs have demonstrated.

[steveklabnik]

FWIW, I've found many people new to programming expect something like types, even though they don't have the vocabulary for it yet. It really just depends on the individual.

[spenrose]

Sure. And many people new to skiing expect something like gussets to keep the snow out of their underwear when they fall. Issue is whether skiing is about clothing or moving over the landscape. Some focus on your clothes is appropriate, and more in certain circumstances. Rust, which I see you are a proselytizer for (I was at Mozilla during Rust's ramp-up, FWIW), is a tool for writing code that is closely integrated with the operating system. In that context, a type-centric mindset is necessary and valuable. If you are writing code in other contexts: exploratory data analysis, a simple Android app, and on and on, then types are there, but programming is not type management

[steveklabnik]

Sure, that's why both kinds are useful. I don't disagree at all.

[Skunkleton]

What do you mean by types? Most modern languages have fairly extensive type systems.