I'm a lazy developer and I love languages with an "if it compiles it works" feel. I'd much rather hack around in rust or typescript with half my brain switched off and a beer in hand and eventually get working software than hack around in javascript with half my brain switched off and a beer in hand and get more and more broken software until I eventually give up.
I don't think the dichotomy is between types and not-types - it's between Rust and other typed languages.
Most people here appear to agree that types are useful, but some people are claiming that a language that forces you to do memory management is somehow as ergonomic/lazy as others that manage memory for you (with equivalently good type systems - TypeScript, ~Python).
TypeScript sure, but Rust? Half your brain switched off? There is a middle ground between unfettered madness and the Rust compiler's strict regime. Maybe try Elm.
Yes, really. I've found Rust to be the easiest language to use while cognitively impaired (i.e. drunk) because the compiler can maintain all of the invariants that my conscious mind would need to manually maintain in any other* language.
*: There are simpler FP languages that can offer a similar experience, but they come with their drawbacks: I don't think I'd want to set up OCaml on Windows under such a state
Larry Wall (the Perl guy) had "The three virtues of a great programmer", in which the "Laziness" virtue wasn't putting minima<l effort into _building_, instead it was about building stuff that created minimal effort for people to use. I can easily see a definition of a "lazy Rust developer" which is about writing things that work properly for everybody all the time. It's being lazy about minimizing the future effort you'll need to put in fixing bugs or answering questions about it, instead of the "throw together something that looks kinda like it meets the requirements" in the minimal amount of time/effort sort of lazy.
