The plague of dynamic type checking

I am legitimately unsure why would anyone intentionally use dynamic over static type checking. It's almost as if they don't value safety nor speed.

>>3

The HM type inference algorithm for simply typed lambda calculi was first published in 1969 and was independently discovered multiple times due to its simplicity. Any language without type inference is a bad hack published by clueless assholes.

which language from the 70s had inference?

Static type checking does not influence the binary size in any negative way.

not by itself, but if you want customizable behavior your're are probably going to need generics/dependent types/polymorphism, therefore you'll generate more machine code.

Languages designed with static type checking in mind were good since a long time ago. SML was published in 1990!.

they were also fairly obscure outside of European academia. I don't think anything earlier than OCaml was promoted for practical uses, and OCaml had problems related to license and frenchness

The funny thing is that the type system of these languages was so simple that type inference would be extremely easy in them.

Java 10 will finally have inference

Was it?

it's usable in practice but forced purity makes you anally deform your're are brain for databases, I/O and networking. also, most of the learning materials are about abstract bullshite

Why optional?

because more options = the lithp way

Typed Racket seems simple enough though. Is there something specific that you do not like?

variadic macros, especially if imported from untyped modules