Language adoption maybe, but not language development. Language dev requires precise semantics. If a user decides that types or other academic nonsense are ov

Language adoption maybe, but not language development. Language dev requires precise semantics. If a user decides that types or other academic nonsense are overrated, they can get away with it. You can be cavalier and just let your application crash - as long as there's a precise formulation underneath you about what 'crashing' means: executing `finally` blocks, rolling back the stack and capturing a stack trace, following an exceptional continuation, etc. You can't YOLO an Algorithm W, an ANF transformation, memory models or register allocation. Language design has to be just right. I don't think language design selects for people who look at a "95% correct" LLM benchmark and think "wow!". A program generated by a 95%-correct compiler will probably run catastrophically wrong in about 100% of executions.