Comment by corethree

>My point is that this way of writing code is not at all incompatible with using a type checker for said code.

I'm saying "incompatible" isn't even a relevant concept here. Here's an analogy:

You're telling me that running with shoes is compatible with running without shoes thus I can run with one shoe on one foot and the other foot is barefoot.

The goal is to objectively put shoes on both feet. Sometimes you're missing a shoe so you have no choice. But this has nothing to do with "compatibility" it's a completely different thing.

We are getting a bit into pedantic territory here, but THAT was my point and I am simply clarifying it because you MISSED the point.