[chrismorgan]

Huh. Here was me thinking that was what static type systems were about. ;-)

[BMorearty]

Static typing does not allow you to refactor code with confidence that you didn't break the application logic. Only automated tests can do that, regardless of type system.

[chrismorgan]

Sure. But an awful lot of failures in refactoring in dynamically typed languages would be avoided by a static type system.

As it happens, I am a Rust fanboy with all that entails, so I (like everyone else in such discussions) am clearly biased.

My point was in jest, as the “;-)” (because HN simply discarded a U+1F609) indicated.

[daveguy]

static type systems != unit tests

[crdoconnor]

That's what strong type systems are about. A strong explicit dynamic type system with appropriate tests can track down bugs more easily than a statically typed weak type system.