> Do you mind if I ask about the size of the systems/teams you've worked on throughout this process?
The "oh wow I'm never doing static typing again" bit happened entirely as a hobbyist, maybe working on a project with a friend or two. My early professional life was dominated by Ruby, mostly in smallish teams, that is, like, under 30 people. Then I got into working in Ruby open source, where the teams are much bigger, and aren't all working for the same org...
> occasionally start writing some C++ logic in an elegant functional way and realize that C++'s boilerplate makes it less readable
Not to be That Guy, but you should give Rust a try if you haven't yet. You may not like it, but it will make writing that style of code feel more like Python, often.
> I wonder whether I've just set a standard so high for the health of a system that many of those who dismiss typing's value don't understand that those benefits are possible
I think the issue isn't about possibility, but about realization. That is, I also did know that more robust static typing existed, but in 2008 I wasn't going to be writing a web app in Haskell, but in PHP or Rails. So it felt pretty academic. And even knowing that it's possible in theory isn't the same as experiencing it in practice. One of the things that frustrates me about this particular Discourse (static vs dynamic types) is that many dynamic language proponents (myself included historically) will understand that testing is a skill that they need to practice with in order to succeed, but don't perceive types the same way. It takes practice! You won't just magically see benefits immediately. They're a tool. But in order to justify doing that work, you have to be able to see a real benefit. I don't begrudge people that don't see the connections here and so don't want to put in the time or effort to realize the benefits.
> Not to be That Guy, but you should give Rust a try if you haven't yet. You may not like it, but it will make writing that style of code feel more like Python, often.
I've never used Rust but I was a (low-confidence) big fan the moment I saw it, and everything I've seen since has only strengthened this impression. I don't exactly _love_ C++ and all its janky weirdness, and Rust seems like it improves ergonomics while allowing even more powerful control over memory and type safety.
Unfortunately, there are a couple of computer science subspecialties that I prioritize when looking for roles, so I lose some degrees of freedom in the ability to pick jobs or side projects that would expose me to Rust.
The "oh wow I'm never doing static typing again" bit happened entirely as a hobbyist, maybe working on a project with a friend or two. My early professional life was dominated by Ruby, mostly in smallish teams, that is, like, under 30 people. Then I got into working in Ruby open source, where the teams are much bigger, and aren't all working for the same org...
> occasionally start writing some C++ logic in an elegant functional way and realize that C++'s boilerplate makes it less readable
Not to be That Guy, but you should give Rust a try if you haven't yet. You may not like it, but it will make writing that style of code feel more like Python, often.
> I wonder whether I've just set a standard so high for the health of a system that many of those who dismiss typing's value don't understand that those benefits are possible
I think the issue isn't about possibility, but about realization. That is, I also did know that more robust static typing existed, but in 2008 I wasn't going to be writing a web app in Haskell, but in PHP or Rails. So it felt pretty academic. And even knowing that it's possible in theory isn't the same as experiencing it in practice. One of the things that frustrates me about this particular Discourse (static vs dynamic types) is that many dynamic language proponents (myself included historically) will understand that testing is a skill that they need to practice with in order to succeed, but don't perceive types the same way. It takes practice! You won't just magically see benefits immediately. They're a tool. But in order to justify doing that work, you have to be able to see a real benefit. I don't begrudge people that don't see the connections here and so don't want to put in the time or effort to realize the benefits.