I think a challenge to me for typing assembly, unless you’re doing old-school C style minimally-useful types, is that assembly types tend to be both more ad hoc and more transient than types in higher level languages, because these types come from the intersection of the problem domain and the way of expressing the solution, instead of just from the problem domain. In C++ I might have a type for “aircraft velocity in mm/s”, but in assembly I might have that type on one line, and then go to velocity in 2x mm/s the next line to save a renormalization; or have types for various state flags, but have them pack differently into a word in different places in the code. This is all expressible, but I think it would make me favor a more implicit typing with a heavier emphasis on deduction, just to minimize the description of types that exist but are not in themselves interesting.

Just thinking about an aircraft's velocity as a specific type, rather than a vector with three floats, has my mind whirling. I can imagine a lot of terrifying things I wish I didn't think could be added later to that struct in some avionics system. What would you need a type for that for? Am I thinking too high level, where this type might include its own getters and function calls?