> Requiring explicit type declarations is usually unnecessary and always a nuisance. Except at function declarations and similar - they help to make the code m

> Requiring explicit type declarations is usually unnecessary and always a nuisance. Except at function declarations and similar - they help to make the code more readable. It's not feasible to dig in code where the only clue about the nature of the input and output in a function are variable names. > Static typing provides a false sense of safety, since it can only prove the absence of certain errors statically. This sentence contradicts itself: if it proves the absence of certain errors, doesn't it provide a certain level of safety? Also, it seems like the author never heard about substructural and dependent typing... > Static typing fanatics try to make us believe that “well-typed programs cannot go wrong”. While this certainly sounds im-pressive, it is a rather vacuous statement. Static typechecking is a compile-time abstraction of the runtime behavior of your program, and hence it is necessarily only partially sound and incomplete. And dynamic typing fanatics want us to believe that the only thing we need is unit tests... Modern, statically and strongly typed programming languages are capable of making us forget many common errors like data races, incorrect resource management etc. The authors enumerate what "us" - the "fanatics" state about static types but what does dynamic typing gives us besides uncertainty? And how could they question the documentational value of static types? The authors of this "research" paper should do more research about contemporary PLT because it seems like they've only programmed in 10-20 years old OOP languages. Also, what is the case for dynamic typing in this paper? I'm really curious because it feels like they're just biased towards dynamic typing.