> type-obsessed languages That quip is really the essence of the disconnect. At its core, typesafety is a boring and practical technique used to prevent mista

> type-obsessed languages That quip is really the essence of the disconnect. At its core, typesafety is a boring and practical technique used to prevent mistakes. And that's all it is. You model your software with some "typing" rules that more or less match the real world desires of its behavior, and that prevents you from accidentally confusing a FrobWidget with the FrobConfig from which it was instantiated. And that's a good thing. But the problem is that mapping of abstract types to real world ideas is inherently glitchy and leaky, for the intractable reason that (1) software isn't ever going to completely match the desires for its real world behavior (because everyone wants slightly different things!) and (2) those desires are going to change over time anyway. But that's not a pleasant situation for Serious Language People. So programming language theory ended up in the weeds trying to create a calculus to handle all the edge cases. And the result is nonsense like this. Typesafety is good up to a point, and Haskell in particular launched itself way past that threshold. Rust too is clearly on the wrong side of it. TypeScript is aiming in that direction. Of modern languages, my feeling is that Java and Go and similar tools are probably closest to the sweet spot.