I think you're spot on here. It turns out that a lot of software development is made easier with static types - but also that some of it is _not_. And having ac

I think you're spot on here. It turns out that a lot of software development is made easier with static types - but also that some of it is _not_. And having access to both without fighting the language can be very powerful. I use static Python types a lot at the application layer, where things have no need to be particularly extensible and having strict definitions for how things are put together brings clarity. But at lower levels of the system, Python's duck typing really shines because I can solve ten slight variations on the same problem with the same code. The same could be said of Typescript, or Clojure+spec, or really any other language where dynamic types are given to you for free (unlike, say, reflection in Java) but types can be added wherever you find them useful.