I'm not the parent, but in noncritical applications an accommodating compiler/interpreter will speed up development. Few advocate such an attitude for critical applications, but whether all compile-time checking should be done in terms of types or not is an open question.
Types speed up my development: they obviate a certain kind of unit tests. If you weren't going to write those unit tests without the types, anyway, then it helps because you now catch type mismatches at compile time instead of runtime.
The question is whether types are the most productive area to focus on when developing better compile-time checks. Maybe it would be better to design languages that solve problems by other means.
> "I'm not the parent, but in noncritical applications an accommodating compiler/interpreter will speed up development."
What does "speed up development" mean? Does it mean "as fast as you can push it to your users"? Does it mean "as soon as it passed QA"? Does it mean "as soon as we receive no further bug reports on it for at least 6 months"?
