> So it's interesting to me that you're going the other way and saying that actually in big, messy systems that static types may hurt you. That's not a common p

> So it's interesting to me that you're going the other way and saying that actually in big, messy systems that static types may hurt you. That's not a common position. I didn't interpret it that way. I interpreted it as "If you have a big, messy system you can tame it into a nice, loosely couple system by adding some types".