[willtim]

> Many static languages have no dynamic types, I think that's worse.

I can't think of a static language that doesn't support a dynamic type, it's just that most require explicit casts or unpacking to use with existing typed interfaces, e.g. "Object" in Java.

> Strongly typed used to mean safe

It still does, it's just that type theory doesn't distinguish between a runtime failure with a nice error message versus a segfault, both are programs that "go wrong".

I would be in favour of "strong dynamic types" instead of "strongly typed".

[codr7]

I don't know enough Haskell or Rust to claim its impossible (outside of unsafe of course), but it clearly goes against the design of the language and is meant as fallback more than option.

Yes, you can write Java using nothing but Object. And no, the experience won't be comparable to using a dynamically typed language.

Map is not terrain, if theory doesn't match reality then changing the former is the only thing that makes sense.

Categories are generalizations, making them more specific weakens them. A RISC approach works better from my experience, where categories are kept trivial and members belong to multiple categories.