> I never once recall an instant where I was saying "Uh uh, this type signature is driving me craaazy".
Is that sentiment based on modern languages, though?
While modern in its place in history, but adhering to older principles, I frequently hear exactly that from people evaluating Go. Languages with more complex type systems bring tools to help alleviate those concerns. Not all of those concepts were widely available looking back two decades ago. Java, for example, which was probably the most popular typed language of that time did not provide even generics until 2004. Being able to write a function once and use it for many (dynamic) types was no doubt seen as a big improvement for many use cases.
Type systems are back in fashion now largely because they are much more usable now, especially outside of the academic languages.
Is that sentiment based on modern languages, though?
While modern in its place in history, but adhering to older principles, I frequently hear exactly that from people evaluating Go. Languages with more complex type systems bring tools to help alleviate those concerns. Not all of those concepts were widely available looking back two decades ago. Java, for example, which was probably the most popular typed language of that time did not provide even generics until 2004. Being able to write a function once and use it for many (dynamic) types was no doubt seen as a big improvement for many use cases.
Type systems are back in fashion now largely because they are much more usable now, especially outside of the academic languages.