I use the type-annotated python at work and at hobby. I see the point of OP, but I'd say it helps even if it's not perfect or "sound". Though I agree on its ne

I use the type-annotated python at work and at hobby. I see the point of OP, but I'd say it helps even if it's not perfect or "sound". Though I agree on its negative impact on the language ergonomics. It removes the joy of writing "scripting language" and as a statically typed language it is far from static-type-native ones. Now I see it as a tax for compatibility: You enjoy dynamic typing at the beginning of the project, but you have to pay it back once you've grown up to a certain scale. TypeScript to me feels much more like a native static typed language because it is. Does it help to be a transpiler? Maybe. But I would think that Hejlsberg just has done an astonishingly good work to make it compelling. Python's type annotation is good and completely reasonable, but gradual typing is such a hard problem and being good is probably not enough here.