Agree. Can one say Mediumly Typed? To me a strongly typed language is very stern - you trade some slight annoyance for some slight sanity checks. For example st

Agree. Can one say Mediumly Typed? To me a strongly typed language is very stern - you trade some slight annoyance for some slight sanity checks. For example strong typing would not let you say 5 + 5.0 because float <> int. >> Type inference fills in the gap between strong and weak typing so that you can still write sloppy code, but reap some of the speed boost. >I don't even know what to say about this. Following this faulty logic might lead one to believe that Haskell has type inference to make all that sloppy Haskell code perform well. Type inference doesn't have anything to do with strong and weak typing, it has to do with manifest and implicit (or inherent) typing. I'm not sure even manifest typing would be the correct term as he mentions performance. So it looks like he is looking for static vs dynamic. Dynamic typing but inferring types statically where possible. It is interesting that type inference in a statically typed language leads to less noise and type inference in a dynamic language leads to some speed boost.