[vouwfietsman]

> do not acknowledge trade-offs when it comes to type systems

> gives link to "limited evidence of benefits"

I'm not looking for absence of evidence, as absence of evidence does not mean evidence of absence. The original post claims tradeoffs, where are they? What are we trading? Even the most dynamic-language friendly results in your linked post either claim: "look at what we did without types!" or "even though there's no types in ruby, devs think about them all the time", which I mean, come on.

The only real criticism or tradeoffs on types mentioned is a person getting stuck on a single static type check compilation error, but I can easily counter that with "undefined is not a property of null".

From the link:

> if the strongest statement you can make for your position is that there's no empirical evidence against the position, that's not much of a position.

This is how hypotheses work. Maybe the problem is that we have a hard time proving anything about programming languages?