[quotemstr]

> Oh, look, somebody just re-discovered static typing.

If you're going to smug, at least do it when you're on the right side of the technology. The problem the article describes has nothing to do with the degree of static typing a language might have. You can make narrow, tight, clean interfaces in dynamic languages; you can make sprawling and unfocused ones in statically-typed languages.

The problem is one of mindset --- the way I'd do it, an insufficient appreciation of the beauty of parsimony. Nothing to do with any specific type system or language.

[Rumudiez]

Yep, I’ve seen this in Swift with a dozen overloads for functions and class initializers to support umpteen similar, but different, types as input. Sloppy schema design reveals itself in combinatorial explosions of type conversions

[quotemstr]

Yes. I don't understand why HN reacts with such froth to the suggestion that this problem runs deeper than type systems.