> We don’t have to respond to an ill-formed value by raising an error! We just have to explicitly ignore it. The point of the article is basically "dynamic typ

> We don’t have to respond to an ill-formed value by raising an error! We just have to explicitly ignore it. The point of the article is basically "dynamic type systems are not inherently more open because we can just ignore type errors in static type languages [which means, of course, that we're making them behave like dynamic languages]"... Well, shoot. Ultimately, this seems like her previous article was just contributing to that six-decade-old flamewar. Since this is a flamewar, it got comments disagreeing, and now she posted an article disagreeing with the disagreements. Everything worked as expected and nothing that hasn't been said before (over and over) was said. Why can't people just be ok with "I like this paradigm and it's ok if you like another"? Sure, the discussion has led to plenty of advances in programming language design, but at this point it's pretty clear that, if it were possible to absolutely prove that one type system is better than another, we would have done so already. Meaning that everything pretty much comes down to opinion.