>Most static type systems that can do what clojure.spec can do tend to include runtime assertion and type checks and do not erase type data from runtime (what some static type zealots call "uni-type" approach).
When you don't erase the type data... you're gonna have more than one type. How is this a "uni-type" approach?
A popular (stupid) talking point in the stupid discussions about static/dynamic while missing that the axes were orthogonal, was for proponents of static types to claim that dynamic languages were "unityped" based on some convoluted logic about tagging data at runtime.
As someone who prefers static types, I agree with you that claiming dynamic languages are "unityped" is stupid. Javascript/Python/Clojure all literally have types.
>Most static type systems that can do what clojure.spec can do tend to include runtime assertion and type checks and do not erase type data from runtime (what some static type zealots call "uni-type" approach).
When you don't erase the type data... you're gonna have more than one type. How is this a "uni-type" approach?