>It's sad that we should expect Haskell users to be chauvinistic about static typing.
We don't expect that. We expect them to recognize that better type systems are better than worse type systems. Which seems pretty obvious when stated that way.
>I have yet to read anyone who advocates for dynamic typing describe static typing as a "flaw".
Try looking on the internet. Every "static vs dynamic" argument has 99% of the dynamic side arguing that static typing is bad because java's type system limits them and doesn't prevent any bugs.
That it's better to accurately and reliably modeling complex systems and invariants through provable assertions is objectively is no more an empty statement than to say that it's better to apply informed materials and structural engineering to the design of complex physical products than to build ad-hoc designs of unknown parameters through guesswork.
If you think that building software is like building bridges, then yes. If you think that it's the exploration of a problem domain that may not be known to you at the start of the process and is subject to various degrees of iteration (e.g. a process more like writing a script/play), then you get vastly different requirements. That's what I meant by "if you define better as more static typing". "Better" is a normative statement and can never be absolute, it's always relative to a choice.
I don't see how it follows that iteration reduces the degree to which one must understand a system. That's just a rephrasing of the attractive but ultimately empty "dynamic typing is just more creative."
Bridges (or car engines, or any other engineered product) aren't invented whole cloth sans iteration. However, it's understanding of the invariants of the iterated system that allow for directed iterative design and ultimately better products.
What's wrong with being passionate about something you believe in?
It seems to me that this "chauvinism" is in the eye of the beholder, offended that others are suggesting that the tools they have invested time in may not be the best way to do things.
Personally, I am quite excited by the prospect of learning and investigating better tools. I think we're only just beginning down the road to finding better ways of programming.
We don't expect that. We expect them to recognize that better type systems are better than worse type systems. Which seems pretty obvious when stated that way.
>I have yet to read anyone who advocates for dynamic typing describe static typing as a "flaw".
Try looking on the internet. Every "static vs dynamic" argument has 99% of the dynamic side arguing that static typing is bad because java's type system limits them and doesn't prevent any bugs.