Wait till this guy discovers Lisp, self-modifying code, or eval()! Code and data are exactly the same thing, just stuff in memory! The problem is that infinite

Wait till this guy discovers Lisp, self-modifying code, or eval()! Code and data are exactly the same thing, just stuff in memory! The problem is that infinite malleability is cool, but a lot of tasks do not benefit from it. Static typing, on the other hand, keeps you from making a lot of dumb mistakes. Static typing lets you spend time on your logic, whereas with dynamic typed languages like JS or Python, you spend time on logic AND on typos, misremembering function arguments and or positions, etc. The thing is, most routines can only really accept one or two types, and only very rarely does one want to treat data as code. A word processor, or a sorting algorithm, or banking library have no need to modify their code; in fact, doing so is likely to break something. The sorting algorithm would benefit from polymorphism, but the others would not. You cannot render an image the same way as text. And the banking library had better be adding integers, not strings or even floats. However, all programs will benefit from the compiler saying "the function doesn't accept this type" or "this variable doesn't actually exist". This guy should find a job maintaining a complex Python server, he'll learn why people like static types. Nothing like digging through a bunch of code to find, "ah this looks like the function I need, what does it take? Oh 'connection'. What's that?" Static typing at least forces a minimum of documentation. Or you make a change, server runs but still not fixed. Then you notice it's not even doing what it used to do, but no errors or anything. After tearing your hair out, you discover you swapped two letters in a variable, which caused a syntax error exception loading the module, which was silently discarded by the dynamic loading code.