His example is also completely unconvincing. I just don't see the problem he is trying to solve here. Unless you take the absence of static typing as a problem.

His example is also completely unconvincing. I just don't see the problem he is trying to solve here. Unless you take the absence of static typing as a problem. In general, new type systems should start with a good problem definition: e.g. what of errors would you like to prevent, and do those problems really occur? Then design a type system, and see if its costs (there is no free lunch) justify the gains. I think the big successes of dynamically typed languages such as Python point out a problem with the C/Java/C++ type systems: they fail to answer especially the latter question. Finally, why a new language?! Build it on top of the type annotations in Python 3: http://www.python.org/dev/peps/pep-3107/ http://www.python.org/dev/peps/pep-3107/ BTW I'm all for statically typed languages, if well done, and am a huge fan of Haskell