In C static types exist, but type coercion means you can shoot yourself in the foot if you wish to.
What I meant above is not that Haskell and Rust are dynamically typed. That’s an error on my side but that the types are inferred. Left for posterity.
To be strictly accurate, Rust and Haskell both have strict type systems. It's just that like you mentioned, the types are often inferred at compile time via type inference rules.
This differs from dynamically typed languages as inferred types always have a statically known type while dynamic types have a type which is interpreted at runtime and which can be reinterpreted.
But yes, you are correct. The comment you replied to does not make sense. Haskell is not dynamically typed at all. (Though as with any statically typed language, you can create a Grand Unified Type that stores everything and pretend it's dynamic.)
What I meant was that types may be inferred but that is not the same as dynamic typing.
Overall, "strictness" is a really bad word to use, because it has thousands of different meanings. But on the context of types, I don't know of any better synonym.
Ah yep. Meant static there and fumbled my words. That's what I get for browsing HN first thing in the morning before coffee.
Now, I admit, I find programming with autocomplete more productive in general, but the compiler (and the compile time type checking mechanism) is still indispensible.
Sure, I don’t have to run the program to find the fault - but I have to run the compiler. And then parse its output and find the line it’s telling me about.
In an IDE, such feedback can be immediate, in place, and point me to the symbol where the error is evident.
I'm personally not there yet, but the way I've seen advanced programs write code is more akin to writing whole paragraphs at once and then relying on the compiler to catch any typos or similar trivial mistakes.