Honestly will never go back to languages without type checking, it prevents so many bugs and is a huge help in understanding code you haven’t worked with previously.
I see static types as one of the most powerful communication tools around, as far as code goes. I can't relate at all to people complaining that they waste time. They must work very differently from how I do, is all I can figure. It's that, or they don't realize how much time they're losing to communication-related tasks, or refactoring, or writing (and maintaining!) extra or more verbose tests, or having even one more bug per year make it to production, or whatever, that'd be saved by static types, so aren't correctly accounting for the time savings. One of the two.
(1) Low-level, static types
(2) Low-level, dynamic types
(3) High-level, static types
(4) High-level, dynamic types
For whatever reason, historically #1 and #4 have been most popular. C, C++, Pascal, Ada, and Java are #1. Python, JavaScript, Perl, and BASIC are #4.
There haven't been a lot of #2 or #3 languages. Some #3 languages (TypeScript and Python with types) have come along, but relatively recently.
A person who experiences only #1 and #4 might notice that they can whip up programs faster in a #4 language than in a #1 language, then falsely attribute that difference to the static types. Whereas the real reason is working at a different level of abstraction.
List literals, dictionary literals, tuples, bigint literals, byte strings, f-strings, sequence unpacking assignment, named parameters (kwargs), decorators, closures (functions within functions), metaclasses, generators, async, list/set/dict/generator comprehensions, multiple inheritance, natural JSON support, ...
"C Is Not a Low-level Language, Your computer is not a fast PDP-11."
C only "maps really well" to PDP-11 style machine code. If you want SIMD, parallel algorithms, heterogeneous programming, memory hierarchies/domains, etc then ISO C is completely useless.
And even then, it's impossible to write something like malloc() without using either an external Assembler or language extensions.
But it's something you just have to get used to, and now that I understand it much better I feel more productive and have more confidence in my code. And the communication aspect is definitely a great help too. No handwritten documentation can be this consistent, completely independent of who touched the code (though to be fair, it's still difficult to get the naming right).
I can't imagine the people calling it a waste of time got over the hump in the beginning. To me it's obviously a timesaver. It does a tedious, difficult (for humans) task and does it quickly & with perfect accuracy. Beforehand worrying about all the type signatures and interfaces felt like 4D Sudoku across various modules, now I can concentrate on the interesting parts.
To me, ideally, types are supposed to be a benefit not only in safety, but in understanding the intent of a piece of code more quickly. For an api or library interface, review the types to see what its intentions are.
But there's something about the typescript type system, with all the picks and keyof and typeof... sometimes it just feels like it's way too easy to go overboard, to the point that it occludes meaning. I understanding struggling with types if you're struggling with figuring out exactly what your boundary does and does not allow, but when you're struggling with types just because you're struggling with the kabillion different ways that some other typescript programmer chose to use the utility types... there are times when I feel like even Scala is easier.
Depends of course a lot on the codebase but all typescript codebases that I've seen so far and considered "well-maintained" didn't really use keyof and typeof all that much. The only way I can imagine how one ends up with lots of those keywords is when you start with a dynamic language approach, and then tell the compiler afterwards what that type might be, instead of defining the type beforehand - might that be the issue?
Definitely not more than other languages. Check out template metaprogramming in C++ or some of the OTT generics in Rust.
This is huge for me. As someone who takes on already completed projects, it's a huge help with debugging and understand what's going on without requiring you to know the whole system forward and backwards. Sure, you still need to build a mental map of the general code flow, but you can look at a single function and clearly see the obvious inputs and outputs. Combine that with a a stack trace and you can debug that method as a single unit and then start to look at where it's called and what its downstream effects are. You don't need to start from the very beginning of the call and then follow it through, keeping mental track of what is available and in what form when and where.