[plt-scheme] Why do folks implement *dynamically* typed languages?

On Sat, 2007-06-02 at 10:28 -0600, Richard Cleis wrote:
   . . .
> Are we 'ordered' into software prisons that have too much freedom?   
> Do we choose type systems to introduce a higher level of  
> civilization?  Are we trying to escape to other programming paradigms?

I have found this to be a fascinating discussion, and I am curiously
conflicted.  I like the "SL"-style type systems but I just feel more
comfortable in lisp.  Still, even if I start a project by making balls
of mud it doesn't take long for me to start documenting data structures
and functions with Haskell-style type annotations and thinking "if only
there was a tool that could check these for me".  I haven't tried Typed
Scheme yet, but it looks interesting.

 -- Bill Wood