I say disingenuous because the people that espouse these beliefs seem to have a minimum modicum of intelligence and do or would certainly (after a moment of reflection) certainly realize their fallacy:
> The only serious argument I hear against strong static type check- ing is that it might eliminate some programs that are semantically cor- rect. In practice, this happens extremely rarely and, in any case, every language provides some kind of a backdoor to bypass the type sys- tem when that’s really necessary.
This is patently false. Port a correct dynamically typed program to Haskell and it will certainly fail until you satisfy the type checker through no small extraneous effort. And this is not a theoretical matter; it is an enormous cost to the programmer that is not there in weaker or non- typed systems.
It is a certainty that type systems ask for far more than is needed to produce correctness. Anyone who tries to dodge this obvious and fundamental truth is operating off of a religious not rational commitment to defending their type system. Note that I am not saying the type system doesn't give you something back but it certainly comes with a inherent cost over alternatives.
> Another argument I hear a lot is that dealing with types imposes too much burden on the programmer. I could sympathize with this sen- timent after having to write a few declarations of iterators in C++ my- self, except that there is a technology called type inference that lets the compiler deduce most of the types
This is the most heinous and sad lie. Type inference changes nothing. The types are there even if you don't have to type them in and they are significantly constraining your set of accepted programs.
I've heard this response before from seemingly smart static typers. I just can't believe a smart person would not see the obvious emptiness of this claim. There is no way anyone would think that having to type characters is the exclusive cost of static typing that inference suddenly whisks away.
I want to buy into the strong static typist's promise of utopia but I have yet to meet a static typist enthusiast that doesn't parlay in these lies, wittingly or unwittingly.
Because of this I have a serious suspicion that there is nothing else to stand on and that strong static typing is simply a case of the Emperor's New Clothes. Prove me wrong.