While I agree with most of what you said, the things you mentioned are more about type inference and good naming than static vs dynamic typing. (While you definitely shouldn't) You can, for example, write Haskell without ever naming a single type.
Considering the use of features like auto, I personally prefer writing unspecified variables while programming and getting the statically inferred types live from the IDE, which for example aids when composing a complicated expression whose type I don't fully know while writing.
Typeclasses/traits are not duck typing. A type statically needs to implement an abstract data type (with its methods and invariants). This is more of a categorization/composition effort.
We don't need static typing, we need code signing. Or at least removing the biological equivalent of auto-running code on CD's inserted into a Windows 98 machine.
I don't seem to follow you 100%. Are you referring to biology or to software? In a biological sense I can't really see how a trusted platform would work. And even then it wouldn't protect against internal malicious code? I was simply referring to turning Cell :: tRNA -> Protein into Cell :: HumantRNA -> Protein :)
And on a software perspective trust isn't really the issue here. Trusted buggy code is still buggy code.
I still find it unfortunate that the guy who invented JS originally wanted to make a lisp but was told to make it more like the C family. Would've been interesting to have lisp run the web. A lot of things might be different today.
The service returns a 503 after some time. Seems to be happening since a few hours ago. Doesn't matter following a direct link or entering any website through their search bar.
But romanizing doesn't solve any of those problems (except maybe having to copy/paste, but with uncommon/foreign names you'll have to re-look at it thrice either way). You're still gonna wonder if 'Sung' is the first, second or third name, because your mistake was assuming that it works like this in the first place.
A better approach is just using whatever name they provide in full. If you need a short name (which is not the case in the original .txt file), ask for one. Just treat names like opaque blobs.
Well, if you're fine with being occasionally called/written Yay-souwn (ah the mistakes that can crop in when translating names into languages with different phonetic constraints), I have no argument against that.
My parents have adopted romanized names. My last name is 洪 which in Pinyin is “Hong,” but in Taiwan, they’ve been using a mix of romanization schemes. In America, my name has been romanized to “Hung.” And I’m fine with that. And I don’t expect anyone to know how to write 洪.
