I mostly agree, types are nice but they should not clutter code like in C++ or C. If the compiler can safely infer a type, it should do it, that's a no-brainer

I mostly agree, types are nice but they should not clutter code like in C++ or C. If the compiler can safely infer a type, it should do it, that's a no-brainer, modern compilers are very capable of doing just that. This is why I like languages like Rust or Go. For FP to some extend, I imagine Rust would be nice since mutability is opt-in rather than opt-out. Cyclic Graphs are always complicated, they're hard, some languages just do the hard part easier while others just gnaw their teeth out. Also agreed on LISP, LISP is probably the only good language ever, it becomes what you need it to be, if you want it's purely functional and in the next line it's object oriented. Modern Compilers will probably coerce languages into a superposition of types, tho there will still be two sides to it, some people will always prefer explicit (as in: type is forced and checked) typing and some will prefer implicit (as in: type is fluid) typing.