I think Haskell's type system is one of it's main strengths, but that's just my opinion.

The thing about pure functional languages is that data is immutable. If you can't change the value (or type) of an object, then it makes sense to use a static type system. So, yes, being a purely functional language means that being statically typed is a wise choice.

The type system shouldn't really get in the way though. Haskell can infer the types of just about anything unlike C++ where every variable must be annotated. Also, being able to create discriminated unions alleviates most of the bane of static type systems. When it spits out error messages, it just tells you at compile time what a language with dynamic types would tell you at runtime.

The opposite of a dynamic type system is a static type system, not a strong type system. A strong type system is the opposite of a weak type system.

Haskell's type system is key to its ability to isolate effects from pure code. Unless you can isolate effects in another way or you remove effects entirely, a strong static type system is a requirement for pure functional programming.

Haskell is a very good example of a language with a strong, static type system. If you want a broad and rounded education in computer science and programming language design in particular, Haskell would be an excellent choice as one of the languages that you should learn.

The type system shouldn't be a huge obstacle. People who program tend to, even when using dynamic languages, follow typing conventions that can be encoded using Haskell's type system. Haskell also features type inference which alleviates verbosity when compared to languages like C++ and Java. When you get an error message, the compiler is only telling you at compile time what a language with dynamic types would tell you at runtime.

The opposite of a dynamic type system is a static type system, not a strong type system. A strong type system is the opposite of a weak type system.

I think Haskell's type system is one of it's main strengths, but that's just my opinion.

The thing about pure functional languages is that data is immutable. If you can't change the value (or type) of an object, then it makes sense to use a static type system. So, yes, being a purely functional language means that being statically typed is a wise choice.

The type system shouldn't really get in the way though. Haskell can infer the types of just about anything unlike C++ where every variable must be annotated. Also, being able to create discriminated unions alleviates most of the bane of static type systems. When it spits out error messages, it just tells you at compile time what a language with a dynamic types would tell you at runtime.

The opposite of a dynamic type system is a static type system, not a strong type system. A strong type system is the opposite of a weak type system.

I think Haskell's type system is one of it's main strengths, but that's just my opinion.

The thing about pure functional languages is that data is immutable. If you can't change the value (or type) of an object, then it makes sense to use a static type system. So, yes, being a purely functional language means that being statically typed is a wise choice.

The type system shouldn't really get in the way though. Haskell can infer the types of just about anything unlike C++ where every variable must be annotated. Also, being able to create discriminated unions alleviates most of the bane of static type systems. When it spits out error messages, it just tells you at compile time what a language with dynamic types would tell you at runtime.

The opposite of a dynamic type system is a static type system, not a strong type system. A strong type system is the opposite of a weak type system.