[pklausler]

If static type systems cannot do everything, it does not make sense to me to conclude that they shouldn't then be used for anything. Type systems aren't part of "regular testing", they're part of compile-time error checking.

[ComNik]

That was not the intension behind my comment at all. I rely on type systems a lot, myself.

I was trying to note that Clojure, as a dynamic language, is making a (to my eyes) very interesting choice, of doubling down on these dynamic methods of verification. For some uses, I can see this as the better choice, for others it isn't and won't be.

[pklausler]

Sure, and I can't fault anyone for wanting less dangerous dynamic languages. But to me it's kind of like wanting less dangerous cigarettes.

[KingMob]

As I commented elsewhere, Clojure very deliberately adopts the stance that type systems like Haskell's are valuable but heavyweight, and chose development speed and concision over types.

In my own work, I chose Clojure because it mirrored my experiences: that type systems weren't worth the trade-offs for me and my field.

Would I prefer stronger typing in different domains (longer project times available, greater consequences of failure like medical devices, etc.)? Sure, and I have in the past. But it's not the case that dynamic languages are always the incorrect choice, like smoking cigarettes.

[stuarthalloway]

Or like leaving the house without a suit of plate mail.

[pron]

When you prove that a language like Clojure (untyped, but with dispatch that is no more dynamic than that of many modern typed languages) combined with a construct like specs is significantly less safe than any typed language, then you can make that statement. It's not like untyped and typed are two binary categories; otherwise, I could say that wanting less dangerous typed languages as opposed to formal tools are just like wanting less dangerous cigarettes. These ideas exist on a spectrum.