[mike_d]

> you reap the benefits of type-safety, testability, and code reuse, etc.

If you treat infrastructure as a problem that has to be solved by code, obviously you'll run into code specific issues like type safety. In the real world I've never root caused a production issue back to that.

[tikhonj]

You've never run into issues where unclear, undocumented, misunderstood or inconsistent interfaces were a significant contributing factor?

[ParetoOptimal]

> like type safety. In the real world I've never root caused a production issue back to that.

Your definition of type safety might not include validation + using the type to carry proof of that validation throughout the life of the program.

For examples see:

https://lexi-lambda.github.io/blog/2019/11/05/parse-don-t-va...

[fwip]

Type safety isn't a code-specific issue, it's a feature.

A YAML configuration file missing a required key, or a misspelling, or a disallowed mixing of parameters, are all things that can be solved by type-safety, rather than getting a deploy-time or run-time error.