> He's not saying their static typing is useless. He's saying it's not an accurate representation of the state-of-the-art in static type systems. Perhaps he me

> He's not saying their static typing is useless. He's saying it's not an accurate representation of the state-of-the-art in static type systems. Perhaps he meant to say "full benefits" and it was only a typo. > I'll take Haskell's type classes over subtyping any day. Type classes and subtyping are not incompatible.