>Swift's type system is what I have in mind: strict, complex, required, and in my experience, often petty.
I do hear a lot of complaints about Swift's type system. I wonder what the specific problems are, because I do not hear similar complaints about Rust. I wonder if it's the combination of subtyping with a lot of type inference and also a full-on trait system with protocols and extensions and such.
My biggest complaints all center around the intersection of custom types with protocols and extensions, especially when trying to get a generic approach to something working.
> "Whether large enterprise codebases will standardize on requiring type signatures is a different matter"
Totally agree that there will always be people who value this tradeoff. That's fine, I just want the Ruby I know and love to keep existing.