> languages without types tend to grow them, like PHP in 7.4 and Python type annotations

Well ... that is a trend that is driven largely by people who love types.

Not everyone shares that opinion. See ruby.

It is very hard to try to argue with people who love types. They will always focus on "types are great, every language must have them". They, in general, do not acknowledge trade-offs when it comes to type systems.

So the claim "tend to grow them" ... it is not completely wrong, but it also does not fully capture an independent want to add them. It comes ALWAYS from people who WANT types. I saw this happen "live" in ruby; I am certain this happened in python too.

> inevitably, people want to push types. even Go. C++ templates are the ultimate example. if it can be computed at compile time, at some point someone wants to, like Rust's ongoing constification.

And many people hate C++ templates. But comparing that language to e. g. ruby is already a losing argument. Languages are different. So are the trade-offs.

> dependent types can get you there. hence perfectable.

So the whole point about claiming a language is "perfectable", means to have types? I don't agree with that definition at all.

> most languages have no facility for this,

How about lisp?

> this lets you design APIs in layers and hide them behind syntax.

The language already failed hard syntax-wise. This is a problem I see in many languages - 99% of the language designers don't think syntax is important. Syntax is not the most important thing in the world, but to neglect it also shows a lack of understanding why syntax ALSO matters. But you can not talk about that really - I am 100% certain alok would disagree. How many people use a language also matters a LOT - you get a lot more momentum when there are tons of people using a language, as opposed to the global 3 or 4 using "lean".

A perfectable programming language