> Any weaknesses with the Haskell "time" library have nothing to do with static types in particular nor the language in general.
Hence, my original point: This goes to show that no amount of static typing can save you from implementing badly-designed software.
If your point was literally "no amount of static typing can save you from implementing badly-designed software" then yes, that's correct and beyond challenge. I perceived a hint of "and therefore we may as well just use dynamic types" or "but proponents of static types are too ideological to accept this" in your subtext. I apologise if I was mistaken in my perception.
To stretch your analogy further "Having an expensive camera does not prohibit you from also taking photography lessons".