Static types in Python
I am glad to see that this is optional.  We need languages that mix compile&#x2F;parse time (static) and run time (dynamic) types, to mix what fits best to each situation.<p>Of course type checking can catch <i>some</i> problems.  The more extremist elements of the static types proponents seldom seem to ask the <i>cost</i> of adding types, and making some otherwise generic&#x2F;overloaded operations harder to implement (e.g. - excess clutter in some &quot;wordy&quot; type systems, particularly in the C lineage where declared identifier names follow the other verbiage).  We need more tools that allow us to easily nail down fixed interfaces to avoid errors, but still allow flexible &#x2F; dynamic &#x2F; metaprogramming type code when needed, without having to jump through hoops in either case.<p>Don&#x27;t be a static typing extremist!  (or throw the baby out with the bath-water, either, I guess)