Unityped vs multityped

Performance Warning: Matrix values are arrays, as exported by math/array. The same performance warning applies: operations are currently 25-50 times slower in untyped Racket than in Typed Racket, due to the overhead of checking higher-order contracts. We are working on it.
http://docs.racket-lang.org/math/matrices.html

Still not convinced that unityped languages suck ass?

>>19
Values do not have types in all languages. For example in Haskell, values do not have types, only variables do; the compiler performs type erasure. Same with C and Pascal. Not so with C++.

Also the statement ``a language that cannot declare what type a value has is unityped'' is very confused. You don't declare what type a value has (although some languages with ``reflection'' or a ``meta object protocol'' let you manipulate run-time types programatically), rather, you declare what type a variable may have.

My preference is to languages with static (compile-time) typing, subtyping and dynamic (run-time) typing, where the default static type of variables is the universal (or any or t or whatever) type, but which you can narrow with declarations. See: Common Lisp.