[IshKebab]

> You don't need to write any more tests in the absence of types.

To achieve the same level of quality, yes you absolutely do. This is actually a fairly fundamental fact about static typing. Static typing is a weak form of formal verification, or equivalently formal verification is just really really strong static typing. Clearly you don't need to write as many tests for formally verified code. The same is true (to a lesser extent) for "ordinary" static typing.

> Sure, I've seen developers do all kinds of stupid things too.

It's not stupid if you have a static typing system available! The stupidity was relying on tests to verify types, instead of ... you know, the thing whose whole purpose is to verify types.

[randomdata]

> This is actually a fairly fundamental fact about static typing.

If you have a complete type system. But as we are specifically talking about partial type systems, you have to already cover all your bases for where the type system is lacking, and by virtue of that you are going to overlap with what the type system also covers.

> It's not stupid if you have a static typing system available!

There is no reason for it, static type system or not.

[IshKebab]

> If you have a complete type system.

Nope. You don't need a Turing complete type system.

[randomdata]

Complete, not Turing complete. How on earth did you manage to add an entire new meaning into the discussion that wasn't there before? I'm getting flashbacks of the earlier comment that started randomly going off on some weird tangent about how tests don't catch all bugs.

Anything to avoid the actual topic at hand, I guess?