> If you are needing typing to solve your own inadequacies as a programmer, you should become a better programmer rather than expect your language to do that for you.
That is one of the most ignorant things I have ever read.
Perhaps if you are needing dynamicism to solve your own inadequacies as a programmer, you should become a better programmer rather than rely on your language like a crutch.
Perhaps if you were an adequate programmer, you wouldn't have such a hard time understanding types and getting the compiler to accept your program.
I cannot imagine a worse programmer than one who willfully rejects a tool which improves a codebase to great extent. Typed languages are strictly more powerful, and you cannot get the same code guarantees from a dynamic language.
Apple have added a fantastic thing to iOS 8 and OS X 10.10 that I am terribly interested in but have managed to find nothing about beyond this post[1]. I think you'd be interested, it addresses exactly the problem you describe by including information from other threads and processes to crash logs.
I am a professional Objective-C developer and have been for several years. Type safety is not an absurd length. Eliminating an entire class of errors from your program by having the compiler infer and enforce types is not ridiculous. Using a type-safe language is a very good idea.
We are human. We have stupid unchecked nil object errors come up in our code bases all the time. Swift will ensure that does not happen again. That's like the least part of what I am looking forward to.
If you are having trouble writing a program that compiles with strong typing, I don't know what to tell you. Using types is nothing more than stating what you expect the shape of the data to be in and having the compiler make sure that is so.
I assumed the longer syllables was part of the "rational" purchases, but it isn't really clear.