This is so predictable. 1. Author attacks premise of dynamic type systems argument. 2. Author presents premise for static type system (which is practically co

This is so predictable. 1. Author attacks premise of dynamic type systems argument. 2. Author presents premise for static type system (which is practically confluent/equivalent/equifinal to premise he just undermined). >static type systems allow specifying exactly how much a component needs to know about the structure of its inputs, and conversely, how much it doesn’t. Indeed, in practice static type systems excel at processing data with only a partially-known structure, as they can be used to ensure application logic doesn’t accidentally assume too much. Chances are you are wrong about 'how much you need to know' irrespective of your type system. Nobody gets it right the first time. When we figure out that we were wrong about how much we need to know about the structure of our inputs (e.g we assumed too little) we do this thing we call... "extending our code" [1]. The question then is simply: which type-system is better at extensibility? And I have no idea how to define "better". [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extensibility https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extensibility