[ReflectedImage]

And that's the problem, if you want your code to actually work you do need to write those unit tests. A program not crashing doesn't mean it does the right thing.

With experience you will learn to either write unit tests or spend the same amount of time doing manual testing.

Once you start doing that then the unit tests just replace the static typing and you start shipping better code to your customers.

[blandflakes]

This always feels like a bad faith argument. Nobody says that with static types, you don't need any unit tests.

And your suggestion that people who like static types "don't know how to write unit tests" is further bad faith.

Perhaps it's dynamic typing programmers who don't know how to write sound programs? Except I'm not making that claim, because I'm giving you all some benefit of the doubt, a degree of respect you are not giving others.

[ReflectedImage]

Static typing doesn't have much value if there are proper unit tests. So it's fairly obvious that if people think there is value in static typing then they are shipping broken code to their customers.

It's called ratting yourself out.

[blandflakes]

> Static typing doesn't have much value if there are proper unit tests

Wasteful unit tests that assert your types are right don't have much value if there is a proper type system.

> It's called ratting yourself out.

Quit being childish.

[ReflectedImage]

"Wasteful unit tests that assert your types are right"

You don't test whether the types are right, you test if your code actually does the right thing. That's what's important to your customers.

The types getting tested is incidental.