The Scala argument in Paper Tigers is incorrect. If Java-style static typing catches 90% of the bugs that can be caught with 5x more complex type system, I woul

The Scala argument in Paper Tigers is incorrect. If Java-style static typing catches 90% of the bugs that can be caught with 5x more complex type system, I would say some trade-off for simplicity is acceptable and it is reasonable to just use the simpler type system. I think types should be optional. ECMAscript actually supports optional types, doesn't it? The whole argument of static vs dynamic typing seems wrongheaded. It should be all about minimal code size. Normally you want the shortest program possible. But you also want some confidence that your program works, hence you write unit tests. If tigers are too scary, than you can use the optional static typing, write more unit test, etc - all at the cost of increasing code size.