I think, though, that when reading this quote it should be taken in the context of e.g. Haskell exhibiting incremental typing – because it doesn't try to specify everything. It can't.
Does not seem to fit with the previous bit of the quote:
"dynamic languages are still interesting and important. There are programs you can write which can't be typed by a particular type system but which nevertheless don't "go wrong" at runtime, which is the gold standard - don't segfault, don't add integers to characters. They're just fine."
