> "[I] realized I didn't hate strong typing, I just hated sucky implementations of it[.]" Same here (but Lua, not Python). I didn't get the point of static typ

> "[I] realized I didn't hate strong typing, I just hated sucky implementations of it[.]" Same here (but Lua, not Python). I didn't get the point of static typing until I learned OCaml - the static typing in C, C++, Java, etc. is a joke. (Especially C!) Type inference also singlehandedly removes one of the biggest problems with common static typing - structuring code so that types reflect assumptions (and changing them with the code) is no longer incredibly verbose. I think the most pragmatic approach is probably dynamic typing with support for static annotations and as much inference as is feasible, though. (As with Common Lisp or Erlang's dialyzer.) Static and dynamic typing is more of a continuum than an absolute fork. Also, minor point - you mean "static" typing, not "strong" typing. While this is a bit of an oversimplification, static vs. dynamic means compile-time-checked vs. runtime-checked, while strong vs weak means "has enforced typechecks" vs "passing around void pointers and casting freely".