> #2 and #3 are about old-school types. There absolutely are approaches to this that don't fall foul of my complaints, but when you say 'old-school types' I th

> #2 and #3 are about old-school types. There absolutely are approaches to this that don't fall foul of my complaints, but when you say 'old-school types' I think you're talking about Java and non inferred types. I was including other more modern languages in my criticism. Scala for example ends up with pretty hairy types very quickly for higher level code. So much so that they made the documentation system lie about the types to make it easier to understand. And most currently popular languages don't give you runtime access to types and allow you to treat them as first class. The languages that allow you to deal with types with the same language you write code in are not remotely mainstream. So unless by 'old school' you include all mainstream languages then I disagree.