>I don't know why sum types are a blessing, also I don't know why pattern matching makes anything better.
That's because you're inexperienced and haven't used them before. Try haskell or rust. This level of type safety actually reduces logical branching errors. And the key word is <exhaustive> pattern matching.
Googling isn't going to give you the insight here imo you need the experience (probably a couple months). If you don't plan on getting it I suggest you ask a haskell developer or rust developer about why exhaustive pattern matching is such a great feature.
> Python has multiple unrelated mechanisms to manage program state
This is like a slightly bad for people who have ocd towards library organization. Two ways to do the same thing exists everywhere. Do you use looping or tco recursion? Why do some languages support both? Doesn't matter that much. This doesn't make a language horrible just makes it a bit bloated. Much worse is stuff like javascripts undefined value. Also TS has tons and tons of libraries that do the same thing. Why isn't that setting off your "bad" red flag instincts? Is it because they aren't in the std? So redundant commands outside of the std are ok but within the std.. bad bad bad? Have you actually hit a real problem related with this or is it just something that feels bad because of ocd?
>It's not possible to make static typing ineffective.
Categorically false. Python does have patterns and tricks which static type checkers can't catch. You struggle with meaning here because you failed to comprehend what I wrote and you're now arguing against a misinterpretation of my statements. Reread that part again, you definitely misunderstood.
How much experience do you need and what kind? I don't have articles published in IEEE journals, but don't think you can get there in few months. But I can write simple proofs in eg. Coq or TLA+, so, I probably know a thing or two about types.
My work experience is measured in decades at this point. So, maybe you want to reflect on your ideas... it does take time to appreciate both the positive and the negative sides of any given type system. I don't think a few month will be enough, if you start from absolute blank slate. It's also silly to measure this in time, rather than effort. You probably never worked on complex problems, nor did you work on problems that require research, as opposite to copying from "best practices". This is where your conviction comes from, at least this is what it looks like.
That's because you're inexperienced and haven't used them before. Try haskell or rust. This level of type safety actually reduces logical branching errors. And the key word is <exhaustive> pattern matching.
Googling isn't going to give you the insight here imo you need the experience (probably a couple months). If you don't plan on getting it I suggest you ask a haskell developer or rust developer about why exhaustive pattern matching is such a great feature.
> Python has multiple unrelated mechanisms to manage program state
This is like a slightly bad for people who have ocd towards library organization. Two ways to do the same thing exists everywhere. Do you use looping or tco recursion? Why do some languages support both? Doesn't matter that much. This doesn't make a language horrible just makes it a bit bloated. Much worse is stuff like javascripts undefined value. Also TS has tons and tons of libraries that do the same thing. Why isn't that setting off your "bad" red flag instincts? Is it because they aren't in the std? So redundant commands outside of the std are ok but within the std.. bad bad bad? Have you actually hit a real problem related with this or is it just something that feels bad because of ocd?
>It's not possible to make static typing ineffective.
Categorically false. Python does have patterns and tricks which static type checkers can't catch. You struggle with meaning here because you failed to comprehend what I wrote and you're now arguing against a misinterpretation of my statements. Reread that part again, you definitely misunderstood.