Well, you did frame the discussion as: > I think your (and the article's) argument could be summarized as "static type annotations without automated enforcemen

Well, you did frame the discussion as: > I think your (and the article's) argument could be summarized as "static type annotations without automated enforcement by actually running a type checker considered harmful" It illustrates your mindset, in my opinion. I think type annotations without checking them (or without a satisfying implementation of said type checking) are mostly pointless. You also left out the part where I remarked on the dismissive tone of your reply.