> All computers ask is for semantic precision and you don't need a static type verification to get precision. So clearly static type verification is unnecessary

> All computers ask is for semantic precision and you don't need a static type verification to get precision. So clearly static type verification is unnecessary for producing programs that work That's a bit contrived. No matter which language you write in, at some step a type check will happen. For dynamic types its at runtime and for static types its at compile time. > And clearly statically-typed everywhere PLs are asking the programmer to do extra work. That's prima facie true. So the burden is really on the MLer/Haskeller to prove that that extra work is giving overall delivery throughput to the programming team. Maybe it is, maybe it isn't. But I'm waiting for the clearly thought out justification. Haven't heard it yet. Here are just a few of the real world accounts of using Haskell in production, you can check out: - The Joy and Agony of Haskell in Production: http://www.stephendiehl.com/posts/production.html http://www.stephendiehl.com/posts/production.html - Haskell is Not For Production and Other Tales: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mlTO510zO78 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mlTO510zO78 - Production Haskell - Reid Draper: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AZQLkkDXy68 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AZQLkkDXy68 If these didn't convince you, there are tons of Haskellers that will attest that the type system in the long run has quite substantial benefits.