[throwawaymaths]

really you wind up making only a handful of type errors that make it into prod.

there are other things that contribute to this like pretty universal conventions on function names matching expected outputs and argument ordering.

it does suck hard when library authors fail to observe those conventions, or when llms try to pipe values into erlang functions, and yes, it WOULD be nice for the compiler to catch these but you'll usually catch those pretty quickly. you're writing tests (not for the specific reason of catching type errors), right? right?

[victorbjorklund]

I let the LLM write my tests. And when they fail it just rewrites the tests to pass.