While that is true, it's not like C++ and Java are the torchbearers of static typing.
Much better type systems exist than those of C++ and Java and basing your worldview of static typing just on the experience with these two is shortsighted.
Much better type systems exist than those of C++ and Java and basing your worldview of static typing just on the experience with these two is shortsighted.
and yet, still, nobody outside the gated community has any idea wtf a monad is. :(
When you are comparing the best of dynamic typing, you should compare that with the best of static typing else the competition is lopsided by specification.
And it's not a fallback on "well, in Haskell". It's not like more "hip" languages can't adopt some of the best ideas from Haskell and OCaml to make their type systems better. Modern languages have already started doing this - Rust for example.
It's about learning from research and making the consumer product better. It's a fact that Haskell/OCaml will never be on the top of the TIOBE index, but they can certainly influence those who are.
Making ill-informed (I can only assume ignorance at best here) blanket statements like Hickey did in _this_ particular talk doesn't help the programming language community.