I am an avid gopher, but this is not a useful response. Believe it or not, there are many places and reasons where Python works out better than Go, and making it a bit easier to use Python in those situations is valuable.
You're getting downvoted, but I think you have a point. Any attempts to enact type-checking in a language that doesn't require it is doomed to failure. You'll get all the safety of a dynamic language, with the flexibility of a typed language.
I think when the first dynamic programing language was invented, the loose typing system must be thought as a big advantage.
Type checking is necessary in some cases, but I really enjoy dynamic typing a lot. So I think a bit tradeoff like this is acceptable. After all, we have to tradeoff everywhere when it comes to computer science such as the time-space tradeoff of an algorithm.
I think people who enjoy dynamic typing have had bad experiences with bad static type systems earlier (C, C++, Java).
Once you use a good static type system (ML, OCaml, Haskell) you see that dynamic typing isn't responsible for the joy, but the ability to express rich ideas without repeating redundant type declarations.
It seems like quite a few people who are used to dynamic languages have found out that static typing and verbosity aren't strictly synonyms by using Go.
