[NtrllyIntrstd]

Considering that it's 2021, and that more static typing in mammalian cells would have prevented some... unfortunate bugs, I would say no.

[etaioinshrdlu]

We don't need static typing, we need code signing. Or at least removing the biological equivalent of auto-running code on CD's inserted into a Windows 98 machine.

[NtrllyIntrstd]

I don't seem to follow you 100%. Are you referring to biology or to software? In a biological sense I can't really see how a trusted platform would work. And even then it wouldn't protect against internal malicious code? I was simply referring to turning Cell :: tRNA -> Protein into Cell :: HumantRNA -> Protein :) And on a software perspective trust isn't really the issue here. Trusted buggy code is still buggy code.

[nlitened]

Yet statically typed biological systems are yet to be ever seen to evolve into existence :)

[NtrllyIntrstd]

Well, we need to give good ol' evolution a bit of slack here, considering that it's not intelligently designed ;)

[NtrllyIntrstd]

* Sorry, of course I meant ProteinConstructionProviderFactorySingleton

[ankurdhama]

Factory or Singleton or whatever patterns have nothing to do with static typing.

[NtrllyIntrstd]

That was meant as an unrelated jab at Java/OOP (y'know because Uncle Bob). Can't name it cell as that would be too obvious ;)