The way the article describes Curry style typing seems like dynamic/optional/gradual types to me. > Curry-style types is when a system of types is applied that

The way the article describes Curry style typing seems like dynamic/optional/gradual types to me. > Curry-style types is when a system of types is applied that is not part of the semantics of the language. This is what Clojure has in core.typed. The meaning of a Clojure program is not dependent on it passing the type checker---it can be run without it. The type checker simply alerts you to type errors in your code. Note that you could consider your type checker to be your own head, which, as flawed as it may be, is what most Clojure programmers use. The types could be anywhere outside of the language. I'm not familiar with Clojure/core.typed--how is it different than TypeScript (or JavaScript with the type checker in your head)? It seems that if the type check fails it does so statically, but often it doesn't fail statically but rather at runtime. I can see that is a distinction but understanding this difference doesn't offer much practical value.