Comment by IshKebab

That's not true. There's a spectrum of typing complexity all the way from TCL everything-is-a-string to formal languages like Lean where the types can prove all sorts of things.

As you go further towards formal verification you get:

* More accurate / tighter types. For example instead of `u8` you might have `range(0, 7)` or even a type representing all odd numbers.

* Better compile time detection of bugs. (Ultimately you are formally verifying the program.)

* Worse type errors. Eventually you're getting errors that are pretty much "couldn't prove the types are correct; try again".

* More difficulty satisfying the type checker. There's a reason formal verification of software isn't very popular.

So it's definitely true that "more obnoxious types" exist, but Go is very far from the obnoxious region. Even something like Rust is basically fine. I think you can even go a little into dependent types before they really start getting obnoxious.

TL;DR, he's just lazy and doesn't really care about bugs.