Yes, where would I be without the _RelationshipBackPopulatesArgument type of

        sqlalchemy.orm.relationship(argument: _RelationshipArgumentType[Any] | None = None, secondary: _RelationshipSecondaryArgument | None = None, *, uselist: bool | None = None, collection_class: Type[Collection[Any]] | Callable[[], Collection[Any]] | None = None, primaryjoin: _RelationshipJoinConditionArgument | None = None, secondaryjoin: _RelationshipJoinConditionArgument | None = None, back_populates: _RelationshipBackPopulatesArgument | None = None, order_by: _ORMOrderByArgument = False, backref: ORMBackrefArgument | None = None, overlaps: str | None = None, post_update: bool = False, cascade: str = 'save-update, merge', viewonly: bool = False, init: _NoArg | bool = _NoArg.NO_ARG, repr: _NoArg | bool = _NoArg.NO_ARG, default: _NoArg | _T = _NoArg.NO_ARG, default_factory: _NoArg | Callable[[], _T] = _NoArg.NO_ARG, compare: _NoArg | bool = _NoArg.NO_ARG, kw_only: _NoArg | bool = _NoArg.NO_ARG, hash: _NoArg | bool | None = _NoArg.NO_ARG, lazy: _LazyLoadArgumentType = 'select', passive_deletes: Literal['all'] | bool = False, passive_updates: bool = True, active_history: bool = False, enable_typechecks: bool = True, foreign_keys: _ORMColCollectionArgument | None = None, remote_side: _ORMColCollectionArgument | None = None, join_depth: int | None = None, comparator_factory: Type[RelationshipProperty.Comparator[Any]] | None = None, single_parent: bool = False, innerjoin: bool = False, distinct_target_key: bool | None = None, load_on_pending: bool = False, query_class: Type[Query[Any]] | None = None, info: _InfoType | None = None, omit_join: Literal[None, False] = None, sync_backref: bool | None = None, dataclass_metadata: _NoArg | Mapping[Any, Any] | None = _NoArg.NO_ARG, \*kw: Any) → _RelationshipDeclared[Any]*

This is even worse because you attempt to try to sell why types SOMETIMES make sense. But you aim with this for a language that did not have nor need types to begin with. People don't seem to understand that this is an issue.

The library-situation is really not different from having types everywhere, and some people will do that too.

> catch bugs that you might otherwise miss.

People repeat this a lot. In about 22 years of writing ruby code, I have never ran into a situation once where I would have caught a bug through types. I don't understand why people keep on repeating this. Repetition does not make it anymore true.

Think in the opposite way: if types would have been necessary to begin with, why would ruby have been successful back in 2006? It was successful without types already. And types were never needed - they came because some people THINK they are needed. This is the biggest problem - the thinking part. They think they are right and all who do not use types, must be wrong and very foolish people.

> It's not an all or nothing thing.

It kind of is? All the partial-typing systems are too complex and usually broken in various ways. Compare to eg Elm or Gleam which are typed and super simple.

I do think it is somewhat of an all or nothing thing. I can write dynamic languages, sure; I prefer having static types, but I have written a lot of dynamically typed code. However if I'm working in an editor with LSP integration, the experience is much worse when some things are missing types.

As an example, I may have a variable with types:

    const something = somelibrary.getSomething();

and I can type `something.` and see methods and properties. However, if my own code doesn't use types consistently, it's so easy to lose type info. For example:

    const something = someWrapper(someLibrary.getSomething())

or:

    function doSomethingWith(something) {
        ...
    }
    doSomethingWith(someLibrary.getSomething()

or any number of other patterns which accidentally strips type info from the variable if you don't use types everywhere.

I would much rather have a language where the compiler complains if some variable doesn't have a static type, than a language where I can accidentally leave something untyped. I don't understand which case I would want a variable or function to not have associated static type information.