[kibwen]

> To the static typing folks: leave my dynamically typed languages alone

Surely you understand that the push to add types to dynamically-typed languages comes from dynamic-typing folks, not from static-typing folks. People who are deeply into static typing have little incentive to consider e.g. Python, whose support for types is relatively weak, loosely-defined, and rarely-enforced compared to the statically-typed languages that exist today.

[wolvesechoes]

> People who are deeply into static typing have little incentive

Except when their boss tell them to use Python, or they rely on one of Python libraries that their pet language couldn't provide via its powerful type system.

[kh_hk]

Doesn't it come from folks that are forced to work with dynamically-typed languages but can't be arsed to understand them?

[arjvik]

understand?

It's really easy to understand that everything is typed as Any/Object/whatever upper bound type your statically-typed language of choice uses.

Desiring something better does not mean a lack of understanding of the status quo.

[nazgul17]

Can you elaborate?

[kh_hk]

Let me paraphrase the summary of Eloquent Ruby by Russ Olsen:

    It’s easy to write correct Ruby code, but to gain the fluency needed to
    write great Ruby code, you must go beyond syntax and absorb the “Ruby way”
    of thinking and problem solving