>>17
*shrug* I give up. pearls before swine and all that. I give you a good coherent argument and you give me "but but but my shitty compiler (very likely to be GHC) can't do inference when there's subtypes!!!" (lol at your troll compiler) and again "but but but if you have dynamic types then you don't have static types!!!" (really how fucking stupid are you? I've stated in like a million different ways that (in Common Lisp, but also other dynamic languages which adopt similar strategies) that you have static types, they're still there, the compiler is still free to use them for error checking and low-level optimization, and their declaration is documentation or whatever. Why do you keep ignoring this?)
You win. You can't possibly lose when you refuse to understand what the other person says. Enjoy your strongly hyped, purely fictional, weird BSDM shitlangs.