in python eco system you have linters like ruff which do hardly any type checking and type checkers like mypy which do try to approach complete type checking, but still are absurdly full of holes
2. speed
any of the "established" type checkers either are supper slow (e.g. mypy) so you only run it like once before commit instead of "life" or do fail to properly type check so many things that if you have a requirement for "adequate static code analysis" they reliably fail that requirement (which might result in a legal liability, but even if not is supper bad for reliable code and long term maintenance)
also probably priorities are switched with 1st speed then closing holes as the later part is really hard due to how a mess python typing is (but in many code bases most code won't run into this holes so it's okay, well except if you idk. use pyalchemy as "ORM" subclassing base model (just don't terrible idea)).
That's a big part of it, but there are also several areas where we're trying to innovate on functionality as well as speed. I'd personally be pretty disappointed if the only thing we had to offer at the end of all this was a type checker where the only value add was speed. We've also got first-class support for intersection types, and quite a different model to other type checkers regarding when and whether redefinitions are allowed, for example. We believe there are significant areas where typing can be made more usable and easily adoptable than it is today.
Existing python typecheckers are bad, slow and their communities are fragmented. If the community would agree on a single good and fast type checker, everyone will benefit.
