Here is a long excerpt from Professor Mark Taver (inventor of the Qi/Shen language), which I think sums up both sides of the argument nicely: -----------------

Here is a long excerpt from Professor Mark Taver (inventor of the Qi/Shen language), which I think sums up both sides of the argument nicely: -------------------------------- (quote from someone named Racketnoob) “I have the strange feeling that types hamper a programmer’s creativity.” The above sentence is a compact summary of the reluctance that programmers often feel in migrating to statically typed languages — that they are losing something, a degree of freedom that the writer identifies as hampering creativity. Is this true? I will argue, to a degree — yes. A type checker for a functional language is in essence, an inference engine; that is to say, it is the machine embodiment of some formal system of proof. What we know, and have known since Godel’s incompleteness proof, is that the human ability to recognize truth transcends our ability to capture it formally. In computing terms our ability to recognize something as correct predates and can transcend our attempt to formalise the logic of our program. Type checkers are not smarter than human programmers, they are simply faster and more reliable, and our willingness to be subjugated to them arises from a motivation to ensure our programs work. That said, not all type checkers are equal. The more rudimentary and limited our formal system, the more we may have to compromise on our natural coding impulses. A powerful type system and inference engine can mitigate the constraints placed on what Racketnoob terms our creativity. At the same time a sophisticated system makes more demands of the programmer in terms of understanding. The invitation of adding types was thus taken up by myself, and the journey to making this program type secure in Shen emphasizes the conclusion in this paragraph.http://www.shenlanguage.org/library/shenpaper.pdf http://www.shenlanguage.org/library/shenpaper.pdf