I wonder to what degree this depends on the individual programmer. I had a class in University that used both Ruby and O'Caml (only the more functional aspects allowed for use there) for different projects.
We did Ruby first and O'Caml afterwards (we were to implement a scheme interpreter for the O'Caml project). Anyway, the impression I got was that most students hated O'Caml and loved Ruby, but while it was harder to get used to working in O'Caml I loved what the typing system did for me.
Every time I'm working in a language like Ruby and suffer from a bug a type system would have caught, it frustrates me. Perhaps for other programmers, every time they have to do extra work so the type inference works when in a language like Ruby they wouldn't have to, they get frustrated.
I prefer my frustration up front, and honestly, found that O'Caml told me, "You didn't think of this nimrod" mostly when I needed it, and rarely when it was just being a pain.
We did Ruby first and O'Caml afterwards (we were to implement a scheme interpreter for the O'Caml project). Anyway, the impression I got was that most students hated O'Caml and loved Ruby, but while it was harder to get used to working in O'Caml I loved what the typing system did for me.
Every time I'm working in a language like Ruby and suffer from a bug a type system would have caught, it frustrates me. Perhaps for other programmers, every time they have to do extra work so the type inference works when in a language like Ruby they wouldn't have to, they get frustrated.
I prefer my frustration up front, and honestly, found that O'Caml told me, "You didn't think of this nimrod" mostly when I needed it, and rarely when it was just being a pain.