How about OCaml, Haskell, Scala, or F#? All have pretty decent type systems, with Scala and Haskell even supporting higher kinded types.

I'm at the point where I refuse to write production code in a language that doesn't have an expressive type system. Dynamically typed languages are even worse.

The worst code I've ever seen in my life are Spark scripts written in Scala.

Scala is so complicated that people use only a fraction of its features, usually the simpler ones.

It takes a real commitment to become a prolific Scala programmer.

> Dynamically typed languages are even worse.

I don't comment on personal taste, everybody has their own.

Have you considered maybe your problem is simply that you don't understand Scala?

I used to be a professional Scala dev and loved the language. Sure, there's some complexity, but I still strongly believe it is the most powerful and expressive static language around.

Have you considered maybe the problem is that I know Scala enough to know when it's bad?

(I studied Scala at EPFL with Martin Odersky as professor)

So, you've never seen production-grade Scala application code?

As I've already said here (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24614064) there are people like you that assume that their background is the only background possible.

Scala is complex, writing production grade Scala requires skill not common, it is like asking regular commuters to only drive F1 cars.

Would everyone go faster or there would be more crashes?

Would you blame drivers for the crashes?

I know Scala is complex. Many languages are. No language starts out with the goal of being complex. They all want to be simple and elegant but the clash with real-world use-cases makes them complex. Like Bjarne Stroustrup said–there are languages that people complain about and there are languages that no one uses.

Seeing your messages, I really think you don't mean the same things as the others when you say "strong type system". Generally what people here mean by strong type system is

ADTs, inference, type-checking, pattern-matching...

All those tools are made to help the programmer write better, safer programs more easily, as well as lay out his thought It is generally associated with FP, and are fond in languages such as Rust, Ocaml, Typescript, Haskell, F#

From what your examples are ( C, java, C#...) and the drawbacks you see (too much getters -> linked to an OOP style of programming), what you mean by "strong type systems" looks like it is the old C-style type systems (+ OOP though I don't really get what oop has to do with type systems). These systems are not mainly intended to help the programmer but are really meant ro help the compiler. When in C you write

`int a;`

What you're doing is indicating to the compiler that for operations involving variable a, it should use the machine instructions for operation on integer (you can replace C with java and machine with jvm...). These are necessary in order to have low-level control, but are not really hepful (apart from, maybe, documentation purposes. It is always useful to know that that ipv4 variable is a 24-bit int and not a string...)

These two types of systems are tremendously different things. I can really understand that you don't like static type systems if you only know the second type of system, which basically only adds constraints.

I think you should take a look at ocaml, or perhaps haskell, it would probably expand your horizons