Me:
> Even for that there is no need for dynamic typing anymore. This problem has been solves with type parameters (aka generics) and type-classes.
This is obviously a general statement. I means "there can be a programming language where there is no need for dynamic typing to solve this kind of problem". And then I continue, that this problem has been solved. That means there is at least one such a language already existing which solves this problem with certain techniques.
Then you:
> Not true.
And once I offer you a concrete implementation as an example, you suddenly change the topic to "but... no mainstream language". And if I would present you a language that could be considered as mainstream, I'm sure you would find another restriction such as "but this language does not have enough... libraries".
Yes you did. Let me quote:
Me: > Even for that there is no need for dynamic typing anymore. This problem has been solves with type parameters (aka generics) and type-classes.
This is obviously a general statement. I means "there can be a programming language where there is no need for dynamic typing to solve this kind of problem". And then I continue, that this problem has been solved. That means there is at least one such a language already existing which solves this problem with certain techniques.
Then you: > Not true.
And once I offer you a concrete implementation as an example, you suddenly change the topic to "but... no mainstream language". And if I would present you a language that could be considered as mainstream, I'm sure you would find another restriction such as "but this language does not have enough... libraries".
There certainly is no true Scotsman for you.