"you're kind of implying that I feel that way because either I don't use static typing much, or I haven't learned it well, aren't you?" No. I didn't mean to im

"you're kind of implying that I feel that way because either I don't use static typing much, or I haven't learned it well, aren't you?" No. I didn't mean to imply or assert anything of the sort. Apologies if I inadvertently gave offense. You seem to be reading meanings into my reply that aren't there. I don't know you from Adam. You asked a question in your post. I answered as best as I could. That said, your latest statement "I'll admit confusion on things like ocaml polymorphic variants and haskell monads," does seems to imply that you don't have much real world experience with static type systems in production (nothing wrong with that) since neither is an arcane concept or particularly difficult to understand. If you haven't worked extensively with Haskell/Ocaml/SML etc, and you are extrapolating properties of 'static type systems' from those of Java or C++ then your idea of such type systems 'stunt prototyping and exploration' might make sense. The rest of your comments are extrapolations from misunderstandings - not born of practical experience. My answer was based on (strictly) personal experience. Which is why I said "in my experience". I gladly concede that YMMV. again, I was just answering your question in your original comment. I didn't mean to "imply" anything and used "probably" to mark my uncertainty about your real world experience with Ocaml/Haskell etc style static type systems. I have extensive experience with both dynamically typed languages (mostly Python, Lua and Scheme) and statically typed languages (mostly Haskell and SML, besides Java). I answered out of my experience. YMMV. And that is cool.