Well, the people behind elixir seems to have accepted that typing is necessary.

I see this story on an on: some hacker makes a language, they hate types because they want to express themselves. The languages gets traction. Now enterprise application and applications with several devs use it and typing gets essential - types will then gradually be added.

sure, a few years behind typescript/mypy isnt really so bad for a language without a microsoft or a google behind it, is all im saying.

> isnt really so bad for a language without a microsoft or a google behind it, is all im saying

What? Elm was literally the result of a single grad students side project - elm incorporates both a sound type system and FRP.

This has nothing to do with time. It was a decision not to support it.

sure part of the decision is that you can't really soundly type (in a developer sanity preserving way) across a cluster that runs multiple versions of software (which is a real use case that the authors absolutely needed to support as part of the core business). but they let dialyzer in to the core so it's not like the team was actively hostile to typing.

These are some weird sentences thrown into this thread.

What you are describing is a runtime concern that has nothing to do with types.

These issues are neither amplified nor alleviated by using types.

Okay? But "the features you need would have taken effort to implement, so we didn't implement them" is not a very good sales pitch when you're trying to convince me to use your tool to do my job.

ok. don't use it then. but be aware: your attitude is why things get stuck in (sometimes really awful) local minima in tech.

Any tool that justifies the choice not to implement an important and highly-requested feature with "effort is a finite resource" alone is not viable for serious development work. It's not prioritizing, it's a refusal to prioritize.

you probably shouldn't bulldoze into a situation with assertions like you've made with such a limited grasp of the history at play.