[steve_adams_86]

> no amount of static typing will save you from poorly defined or optimised-too-early types that encode business logic constraints into programmatic types.

That's not a fault of type systems, though.

> because business logic will move faster than whatever code you can write and fix, and exposing it as just "types" breaks the process for future programmers to extend your program

That's a problem with overly-tight coupling, poor design, and poor planning, not type systems

> In practice, I find that staunch static typing proponents are often middle or junior engineeers

I find people become enthusiastic about it around intermediate stages in their career, and they sometimes embrace it in ways that can be a bit rigid and over-zealous, but again it isn't a problem with type systems

[danieltanfh95]

> overly-tight coupling, poor design, and poor planning

yeah imagine if you could foresee the future five years in advance. People overestimate their ability to use type systems correctly, as shown in your reply here.

[steve_adams_86]

It has worked out well for me for 15 years or so.