You keep making assertions based on completely false assumptions about Julia and its type system. It might come across better if you posed these assertions as questions instead. A few counterpoints...

> One immediate benefit of a powerful type system that I'd like to point out is that Spiral allows reflection over tuples, which is a lot more elegant solution to a problem of a function having variable arguments than the C-style varargs mechanism that I see Julia using in the examples you've shown me.

* Julia's type system can reflect on tuples just fine at both compile time and run time and we do so all the time. When tuple size and contents are statically knowable, there is no run time overhead.

* Julia's varargs are represented as tuples, which can be and are reflected on by the compiler. Julia's varargs has nothing to do with C varargs except superficial usage similarity.

> Another benefit is that Spiral has no need for separate static array machinery. Because literals can be a part of a variable's type and if not, unless explicitly prevented the literals tend to be propagated through function call boundaries (join points).

* The fact that Julia's default array types doesn't include static dimensions is a design _choice_ not a type system limitation. Specializing on the exact dimensions of an array is _not_ usually what you want to do in general computational work. If it _is_ what you want to do, you can use the StaticArrays package.

* Literals can be type parameters in Julia too—this is done all the time. Indeed, as I said elsewhere in this thread, type parameters can be other types, integers, floats, symbols, tuples, and recursive constructions thereof.

* The StaticArrays package is implemented in pure Julia, demonstrating that the type system is perfectly capable of reflecting on tuples and having dimension sizes and tuples of them as type parameters—that's how the static array types are implemented. The compiler generates completely unrolled, fully inlined code for static array operations since the dimensions are known at compile time.

> Assuming they are known at compile time the inlining of tensor dimensions in loops is actually the default behavior in Spiral. I've yet to do benchmarking to see how helpful that is, but I am sure it would help reduce register pressure.

I understand that Spiral is targeted at a context (GPUs) where static arrays are a good default. The fact that Julia does not take that approach as a default is not a type system limitation (as proven by the existence of StaticArrays), it's a choice based on the fact that static arrays are not the right default for general numerical computing. There are many situations where being forced to know array dimensions at compile time is not helpful or even actively problematic.

> Your examples are not quite enough to get me to apologize for my rude behavior, but are enough to get me to shift my views a little so I'll change the offending sentence so it reflects reality more accurately.

I'm unclear on why any examples are necessary to apologize for rudeness. Being right doesn't justify being rude.

As far as I can tell, the relationship between Spiral and Julia's approaches is roughly:

* Spiral is static and primarily focused on statically known, fixed sized arrays and generating good code for GPUs.

* Julia is dynamic, and primarily focused on flexibility along with C-level performance on CPUs.

* Julia partially covers Spirals target territory with StaticArrays and GPU code generation capabilities.

* Spiral does not, on the other hand address (or aim) to the more general array computing that Julia supports.

Given the substantial overlap in capabilities, it seems like dismissing Julia out of hand for the application areas you're interested is both unwarranted and unwise. You may want to be a bit less dismissive and understand it and learn from it instead. In particular, Spiral's type system is not more powerful than Julia's. They are different since Spiral's is static and forces types to be known and checked at compile time (as far as I understand). Julia's type system relaxes this, allowing types to be unknown until much later—and as a tradeoff, checked much later. I have yet to see anything that Spiral's type system can express that cannot be expressed in Julia's. Of course, we're also cheating since Julia doesn't do type checking and therefore having a highly expressive type system doesn't really cost us much.